When corporations scrape academic papers, it's justified. When individuals do it, it's inexcusable.

On the whole, maybe LLMs do make these subjects more accessible in a way that's a net-positive, but there are a lot of monied interests that make positive, transparent design choices unlikely. The companies that create and tweak these generalized models want to make a return in the long run. Consequently, they have deliberately made their products speak in authoritative, neutral tones to make them seem more correct, unbiased and trustworthy to people.

The problem is that LLMs 'hallucinate' details as an unavoidable consequence of their design. People can tell untruths as well, but if a person lies or misspeaks about a scientific study, they can be called out on it. An LLM cannot be held accountable in the same way, as it's essentially a complex statistical prediction algorithm. Non-savvy users can easily be fed misinfo straight from the tap, and bad actors can easily generate correct-sounding misinformation to deliberately try and sway others.

ChatGPT completely fabricating authors, titles, and even (fake) links to studies is a known problem. Far too often, unsuspecting users take its output at face value and believe it to be correct because it sounds correct. This is bad, and part of the issue is marketing these models as though they're intelligent. They're very good at generating plausible responses, but this should never be construed as them being good at generating correct ones.

i agree, my problem is that it wont

That would be good if they did that but that is not the intent of the org, the purpose of the tool, the expected or even available outcome.

It's important to remember this data is not being scraped to make it available or presentable but to make a machine that echos human authography convincingly more convincingly.

On an extremely simplified level, it doesn't want to answer 1+1=? with "2", it wants to appear like a human confidently answering an arithmetic question, even if the exchange is "1+1=?" "yes, 2+3 does equal 9"

Obviously it can handle simple sums, this is an illustrative example

Except it won’t. And AI we’ll be pay to play

It's a US "non-profit". One that demands 19$ per article which they merely provide as aggregator, they don't own shit.

Utterly absurd.

Disgusting bootlicker spotted. For context:

After state prosecutors dropped their charges, federal prosecutors filed a superseding indictment adding nine more felony counts, which increased Swartz's maximum criminal exposure to 50 years of imprisonment and $1 million in fines.

Permanently Deleted

why are you on here if you're this much of a bootlicker? go pay for digital media like an idiot if you feel this way.

I know of a case in a German university where something like that was dealt with quietly and internally.

But your argumentation structure is flawed. It would be better to argue what an organization ought to do and how that is legally and ethically justified than to argue that every organization would call the cops.

I mean your argumentation boils down to your own ignorance (I don't know of any case ergo it is impossible/improbable) or hand waving that it is obvious. That is not convincing Argument imho even if what you are arguing for is correct. Which I don't believe just to be clear.

By peons*

Totally fine when they do it.

thanks! it actually makes much sense.

welp guess I was wrong. so back to .edu scraping!

No and no.

Never really was

On the other hand some breakthrough in either hardware or software could make AI models significantly cheaper to run and/or train. The current cost in silicon is insane and just screams that there's efficiencies to be found. As always, in a gold rush, sell pickaxes

Not sure if you are joking but... it does not appear to be making anywhere near the amount of money that has been invested in it.

It costs a stupendous amount of money to develop the models, to train them, to rent out or just buy the hardware needed to do this, to pay for the electrical power to do this.

Last time I heard, no. They are burning money to train new models.

Running those datacenters is extremely expensive.

It's following the Amazon monopolization model.

Or are you telling me that vastly the fastest growing platform in history with multiple payment gates (subscriptions, pay per token, licensing etc.) was not profitable

Are you not aware that 99 times out of 100 if you see a tech company rapidly growing it's completely unprofitable and not even attempting to be profitable yet? It's called blitzscaling and is pretty clearly what openai is attempting. Like if you see a tech company quickly growing you should be assuming it's unprofitable until proven otherwise not the opposite lol.

Estimates from earlier this year are that they spend $2.35 for every $1 they make.

They've never been profitable and current estimates say they won't be profitable until at least 2029: https://www.businessinsider.com/openai-profit-funding-ai-microsoft-chatgpt-revenue-2024-10

We are in the right, so we don't have to obscure facts.