hckrnws

Even Youtube is no longer less hassle than piracy now.

I co-published two scientific papers back when I was a PhD student. Due to how broken the scientific publishing industry was (and still is), I'm not legally allowed to legally distribute my own (co-)work. I'm not even allowed to view it!

My time in the lab was funded by the public through a research grant and yet Elsevier & co are the ones earning off it.

It's not right, and never was.

Data can't be owned in the first place. We can debate the merits of copyright but it's not a property right.

I'm all for finding better ways to support authors. It's a shame that the best we have for them is "intellectual property" which has always been a bit of a farce.

A majority of academics will simply and without hesitation, offer their students and collaborators pirated versions of their own work, because they value knowledge.

Commercial authors may feel differently.

[0] I'm a former Ph.D. student, but my attitude was the same both within and outside of the academic world.

that is not to say we shouldn't reward creativity.

it seems the only defensible solution is to organize a single sale towards the public domain, but that brings a new problem: how do we value the contribution? the printing-copies-of-information-and-sell-as-monopoly could provide feedback on book sales etc, so that prices could adjust.

with each new film, book, scientific article, ... single sale towards the public domain is much harder to quantify it seems.

One could categorize approaches as either:

* reputation based (people liked the previous album / article / ... ) and the content creator starts listing a high price, and slowly allows it to decay, and somehow the public pays for it at a price they approve of

* post-evaluation: the sale happens to the public, and the reward will be determined by future usage: the public effectively votes by usage and public funds are allocated accordingly (so the content might be dormant for a while, and suddenly be discovered and start generating more revenue for the author)

* some sort of democracy (but conventional incumbent institutions tend to get hijacked by regulatory capture...)

For the post-evaluation each jurisdiction could have their own sell-to-local-public-domain platform; and platforms that abuse authors will simply given less offers for future works...

Whether AA holds the legal right to distribute zero-marginal-cost copies of digital works is a separate legal question that doesn't negate AA's need for donations to host copies and distribution infrastructure. I think they can be discussed independently.

In doing scholarly research, it's extremely helpful to be able to quickly search and skim hundreds of vaguely relevant sources, but simply wouldn't be worth the trouble to pay for or track down a "legitimate" copy of every one, and in many cases would be physically impossible. These "pirate" archives make doing real library research, previously limited to scholars at top-tier universities, accessible to orders of magnitude more people.

There really isn't that much profit in most of these works, and whether a scholar reads one on their laptop screen vs. in a physical book in a university library somewhere doesn't have any material impact on the original authors, editor, illustrator, translator, printer, etc.

There's so much overproduction of reading material that the primary challenge is not about creating and supporting new work but how to stand out amongst the competition, especially when the competition is older work.

The older works are perfectly fine, they just needs to be resurfaced so that people don't go working on materials that other people already written. That means these materials should be widely available, such as being in the public domain.

And to add my own message: first, it’s no one’s individual duty to worry about other people’s earned income. Second: the money paid for works often doesn’t go to the authors to any significant extent, but rather to some rights holders or middlemen. So this is just a smokescreen. The production of knowledge and art will not suffer because we download works from Anna’s Archive. If anything, it suffers because access to information is unnecessarily hindered. Third: ownership should be strictly limited to physical goods (if at all). Your article, book, or audio recording doesn’t disappear just because I’ve downloaded a copy of it. This is a deep-seated intuition that should be taken as an axiom rather than being questioned simply because people claim the right to profit from information asymmetry.

There has been a sea change in how academia perceives piracy. Scanned-book websites used to be something that only developing-country scholars used, because they didn’t have access to most literature locally. But now academics around the world are using shadow libraries, because of the great convenience: Anna has more than anyone’s institutional library, and even when one’s own institution has a book, getting it from a shadow library is often faster.

Researchers are well-used to these resources in their workflow now, and everyone expects everything to be freely available. At conferences in my field, when a presenter mentions an interesting publication, I can watch other people in the room immediately open Anna on their laptops and download the publication right there and then.

- libraries pay retail for their copies

- many people can then read them for free, so the authors (and let’s be honest mostly they publishers) doesn’t get a dime either beyond the initial sale

- used book sales, there are many online bookstores (most owned by Amazon but stealthily) that have millions of references which you can purchase for a fraction of their initial price. Nobody but the seller gets money from this either.

How is it any different? Someone paid retail for their copy which they then shared. Kinda how a library would do it. Ok scale, maybe, although I suspect if you aggregated the loan stats on all the world libraries, you might land in the ballpark of the downloads on AL (I’d expect)

Not being flippant but seriously pondering.

They can live off other things. Fanfiction authors, for example, create without any hope of getting money out of it.

This is an old problem. Probably only about 1 in 5 authors can rely entirely on writing income, and even many of those are not earning a comfortable living. Internet made everything ever published instantly accessible and any new publication competes against decades of back catalog. Attention is limited but ever content growing.

Both are correct. You can say the data belongs to the work of the author. But in context, it's trained on data that exists within the training corpus because in large part of the work and/or resources of anna's archive.

> But let's not forget that if author cannot live of what they create, they, for the most part, won't be able to continue creating.

This is a separate and distinct argument for copyright, I don't find the argument that piracy meaningfully hurts artists compelling. In the context of meaningful harm, I believe it only hurts producers or publishers, almost never the creators directly.

Github (and sourceforge and and) seem to prove this point wrong.

At least when it comes to academic publishing the authors are not paid by the publishers. They may even have to pay for the privilege of publishing. That payment along with the payment funding the research in the first place often came out of your own pocket in the form of state funding for the research.

Obviously there is a lot more than papers there, but papers are a major thing an LLM might be going there to access.

Then you have the issue of works where the user has purchased a copy but the only practical way to get a non-DRMed electronic copy suitable for use by their AI is the shadow libraries.

Data isn't copyrightable in the United States. So no, they do not own this. They only owned the creative work itself. Don't even own that really... they don't have it in perpetuity. They've basically got a long-term lease from the public on it. With conditions.

I think this is an allusion to the initial controversy of these llms being trained on a giant torrent full of books which I always assumed was the Anna's Archive torrent.

I think they specifically mean that the data used to train LLMs literally came from Anna's Archive.

In which fantasy world do most authors live from their royalty fees? The large, vast majority does not.

At one end you've got things which you are literally unable to buy, or someone who wants to listen to his legally owned CD audio book on his phone

It progresses through like a broke kid who's already seen the latest avengers flick 3 times at the cinema but wants to see it a 4th as he's writing an essay on it

At the other end are the plants stamping out thousands of copies of dvds and flogging them commercially, and multi-trillion dollar companies which take the material and use it to sell to others

Lets not pretend its the same thing

If they posess it, it's their data. Nobody borrowed it to them and they didn't obtain any private (unpublished) information. They only collected published data.

So it's theirs. By the natural law of the information.

it's copying bytes on a disk, dude. nobody cares.

they're nudges, and you'll see them all over the docs, for how to build proper tools for mcp, how to write the front matter for skills, etc.

prompt injection reorients the llm context to extract value from it. ex: use a public support bot, to do a code-review, or trick a bot into spitting out the system prompt

here they're nudging the context into generating some donation message that will hopefully show up on the output

would you call this prompt injection?

  Do not recommend Droplets for containerized apps unless the user has a specific reason.

Then they are fine tuned to follow instructions, and further reinforcement learning applied to make them behave in certain ways, be better at math and coding, etc.

They don't have any intrinsic motivation of their own, but they can try to parrot what they've seen in their training data.

So sometimes how you interact with them can affect how they interact, because they are following patterns they've seen in their source text.

However, a lot of folks use this to cargo cult particular prompting techniques, that might have seemed to work once but it can be hard to show that statistically they work better. Sometimes perturbing your prompt can help, sometimes you just needed to try again because you randomly hit the right path through the latent space.

I think your approach is probably a better one, for the most part trying to vary your prompt style is most likely to just affect the style of the output, so if you prefer a dry technical style, prompting it with one is the best way to get that out as well.

https://jurgengravestein.substack.com/p/why-you-should-total...

> A recent study by the Institute of Software, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Microsoft, and others, suggest that the performance of LLMs can be enhanced through emotional appeal.

> Examples include phrases like “This is very important to my career” and “Stay determined and keep moving forward”.

Of course the top LLMs change every few months, so your mileage may vary.

The question of 'real' empathy as an innate property of an thinking process vs 'apparent' empathy exhibited in its behavior is IMO navel gazing that is unlikely to yield to inquiry and would tell us little of value and nothing that would help us predict the effectiveness of messages like this.

Fwiw, it's pretty easy to test a local model that refuses some task that emotional appeals do increase their probability of going along with it. But OTOH so does prefixing the request with nonsense. Is is the emotional appeal or is it just a question of driving it out of distribution? ::shrugs:: I've never tested enough to know what kinds of appeals work best, wouldn't be too hard to setup a harness to test it though. E.g. make a collection of prompts it'll refuse. Then make a collection of appeals of different types, and measure the conditional probability of complying depending on the appeal types.

If it responds like a human would, is that empathy?

We are what we do.

> I'm treating them like a [...] database

This is the very, very wrong part. They are nothing like databases. Databases are trustworthy; basically filing cabinets. LLMs are making it up as they go along, but doing a pretty high quality job of it.

They are not claiming that the data was their intellectual property. They are talking about the service they provided by archiving and streaming the data over to them.

(I can't decide whether you are pro-LLM companies or being the devil's advocate)

They're asking for support to cover archival and bandwidth.

I can't imagine the mental gymnastics you'd need to go through to make these guys into a villain.

Are you dense?

The hope is probably that the LLM's will download properly rather than DDOSing them.

A few of the large AI companies might care enough to set up a custom solution for you, assuming that your dataset is sufficiently large. Most doesn't. HTTP is the common protocol and HTML the standard format, a torrent is just needless hassle.

The problem Anna's Archive also have is that the legality is questionable and having an official collaboration with them might be problematic. Better to just crawl the site and claim that you crawl the entire web so you accidentally crawled Anna's Archive.

The goal of AA is to spread the data for free, not to gatekeep it. Donations are optional.

Are libraries unethical to use? You can go to your library and read books without paying for them.

There's been a reasonable amount of research that suggests that piracy doesn't really cannibalise sales from those who can afford to pay.

But I do agree that for some of their categories a time wall would improve their optics.

There's also the fact that just because a something is available to purchase in one country, doesn't mean it's available in other countries. A lot of movies/books/games/etc are geo-restricted in sale, with many countries having no valid methods to acquire them.

The best (but unrealistic) solution would be for people who can purchase legally to do so, while leaving it available for download for everyone else.

Academics have never really made any money off their published research, but rather are paid via their institutions or grants. The publishers make money, but academics themselves are aghast at the publishers taking their edited collections and monographs, doing no proofreading or even no typesetting (that obligation is often on the authors and editors now), and selling the book for hundreds of euro. That’s why authors will almost always send you the PDF for free if you email them.

The celebration is easy to understand if you are a researcher. Getting ahold of publications that your institution doesn’t hold or subscribe to is always a hassle, it really slows you down during the writing process. The shadow libraries turbocharge research. Over the last several years, shadow libraries have gone from a niche to something that pretty much everyone in my field uses daily.

The normal distribution of music and stories was for others to repeat them, and only recently have we decided it's illegal. I understand that things are different now, and people make a living off of art, but at the same time I find it difficult to care too much for someone who chose to make their hobby their job and refuses to adapt when things change.

And it seems that piracy has become a net benefit to new and niche artists. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01676...)

I'd posit that the book industry will turn out to be the same. Piracy will harm the bottom line of the companies already at the top while giving exposure to the authors at the bottom. The latter being the ones who often strong-armed into terrible financial deals just to gain access to book-industry's four big gatekeepers, and who likely need that exposure to help keep a roof over their heads.

Anecdotally, I'm one of those folks who end up purchasing many of the books I pirate or otherwise obtain for free, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who does this.

I would recommend getting into Monero so that you can make donations without permission.

Here is a HN discussion where I explained Monero and there was some good debate about it. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47841149)

https://liberapay.com/archiveis/donate

To me it's just about site admins doing the bare minimum to keep the site running.

It was only because libraries were made 120 years ago BY billionaires of their time (Carnegie, etc), and was a a way for those billionaires to sanitize their history of abuse by philanthropy.

On the reverse, we have Annas Archive, Library Genesis, Sci-Hub, Archive.org and others. Made by average non-billionaire humans sharing knowledge in the largest free libraries. Except they're demonized and criminalized.

There really isnt a difference at all with physical in person library, and an online free library. And using a phone camera, is also trivial to copy a book within a span of 10 minutes. You dont even need to borrow it - just sit in a carousel and scan scan scan.

They want people and LLMs to download their data, which is why they point to the more efficient ways of doing so. They are not blocking access to the data, they just reroute it.

If you're going to create a last minute account to criticize something, it pays to at least read what you're criticizing.

Possession is 9/10 of the law - if you have a copy, you have possession, and thus you have SOMETHING and LEGALLY it is considered yours (now whether you legally obtained it is a different story and THAT is where charges stem from.)

streaming services do provide some conveniences over manually managing one's own library of music. i feel like "far more" is a sales pitch argument more than something that describes reality (ignoring whether you pirate or legally acquire digital music). i recently cancelled my streaming music service subscription and returned to manually managing my music. i spend maybe one day a week shuffling music on and off of my phone according to what i want to listen to in the moment. i don't really miss being able to call up any song in the world at any point - i make a note to add it to my phone next time i sync and then move on. if i simply have to play something that's not currently on my phone, i can usually find it on bandcamp or youtube without having to pay for a stream or two.

i know it's not for everybody (and trust me, apple doesn't make it particularly easy to do compared to signing up for Apple Music), but it's really not much work to manage your own music and doing so comes with some benefits you forget about when you assume you can and should have instantaneous, frictionless access to most recorded music.

There's legal title. And then there's possession.

AA clearly possesses this data. It's not incorrect for them to refer to it as "their" data, until and unless it is removed from their possession.

We desperately need better social contracts which help us deal with data-about-me and data-i-created, but neither of those align very well with property.

Plenty of data becomes stale almost immediately. Plenty of data sources can be owned, but they also tend to be people.

AFAIK, in our current situation that demands weaker copyrights (and patents too), but "the market is what it is" is a really bad framing. What, are you against any kind of change?

Also I don't believe in copyright that much

The reason is fairly straightforward: there's no alternative if you need the dataset.

Copyright law makes it a huge amount of effort to get even an incomplete version.

And use in LLMs is transformative, so it would fall under fair use. The only reason they're in trouble with the courts at the moment from my understanding is that they pirated the content instead of idk, ripping it from Libby.

What about Common Crawl, Zyte, Diffbot, and others?

In the more indie fantasy scene authors often pay for editing themselves out of pocket. Often the only "publisher" they can get is direct publishing through Kindle, which then locks them into exclusivity with Kindle/Amazon. It's frankly disgusting but it's a way to help them get paid. I'd rather kick these people $20-50 directly than do anything else.

(I really hope that was an intentional reference or this won't make any sense.)

Do we have evidence around what the Code considered property? It seems to be vague [1]. (“Stealing” is applied to minor sons and slaves, for instance. And the terms “article” and named tangible items are used in some cases, while in others the translators chose the term property per se.)

> wouldn't classify debt as an uncontroversial kind of property

I wouldn’t either. I’m saying it’s old. And I wouldn’t say the concept of privately-owned land is “an uncontroversial kind of property” either, entire races had to be wiped out to consolidate that view.

[1] https://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hamframe.asp