We need to ban the publishing business from academic stuff. Have the Universities host a site that’s free access. They can also better run the peer review system and the journals would also also no longer control what research sees the light of day even behind a paywall.
Comment on "Did you realize that we live in a reality where SciHub is illegal, and OpenAI is not?"
uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 months ago
The IP system, which goes to great lengths to block things like open-access scientific publications, is borked borked borked borked borked.
If OpenAI and other generative AI projects are the means by which we finally break it so we can have culture and a public domain again, well, we had to nail Capone with tax evasion.
Yes, industrialists want to use AI [exactly they way they want to use every other idea – plausible or not] to automate more of their industries so they can pay fewer people less money for more productivity. And this is a problem of which generative AI figures centrally, but it’s not really all that new, and eventually we’re going to have to force our society to recognize that it works for the public and not money. I don’t think AI is going to break the system and lead us to communist revolution ( The owning class will tremble…! ) But eventually it will be 1789 all over again. Or we’ll crush the fash and realize the only way we can get the fash to not come back is by restoring and extending FDR’s new deal.
I am skeptical the latter can happen without piles of elite heads and rivers of politician blood.
Maggoty@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Liz@midwest.social 10 months ago
How would you publish if you’re not a part of a major research institution? Los Alamos National Lab could host its own papers just fine, but what about small-time labs? I know of at least one person who doesn’t even officially work in science but publishes original research they do in their free time.
The journal system still provides a service, even if they over-charge for access. The peer review system has value. Imagine if there was zero barrier to publish. As a reader, you’d have to wade through piles of trash to find decent science.
Where would you find it all? Currently we use journal aggregators, whose service also has value and costs money. Are you really going to go to every university’s website looking for research relevant to your area? We could do that again, but with everyone responsibile for publishing their own work, well, who gets indexed with the aggregators?
Maggoty@lemmy.world 10 months ago
You get published with a university instead of a for profit publishing system. And universities would get a good or bad reputation for their peer review, just like journals. The aggregator could easily be run by a coalition of universities with government grants to make the maintenance and upkeep free to the users and universities.
We do not have to lock research behind paywalls.
cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml 10 months ago
The problem isn’t just publishing though, it’s academia as well. Scientists are incentivized to publish in “prestigious” closed access journals such as Nature. They are led to believe it’s better for their career than publishing in open access journals such as PLOS One. As such, groundbreaking papers often get paywalled. Universities then feel obligated to pay outrageous subscription fees to access them.
Maggoty@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Yup. And this would change that, giving universities more influence.
CallumWells@lemmy.ml 10 months ago
JoeKrogan@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Thats actually not a bad idea, train a model with all the data in scihub a then release the model to the public
Liz@midwest.social 10 months ago
It would still be useless, the thing would just produce bullshit papers.
worldsayshi@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Actually a good point.
Chocrates@lemmy.world 10 months ago
That would likely be explicitly illegal if the NYT case succeeds (and it isn’t fraud as OpenAI alleges)
Amir@lemmy.ml 10 months ago
This is just the most inefficient zip file ever created