We are opening a consultation on the inclusion of ACM publications within AI licensing agreements for access and training purposes. To set out our thinking behind this consultation, we have published this piece by Scott Delman as to why we believe it is now the right time for us to enter into these discussions.
🔗 : https://cacm.acm.org/opinion/now-is-the-time-to-give-llms-access-to-the-acm-digital-library/
6
Replies
·
0
Boosts
@ACM thanks for opening up this discussion here on the Fediverse. It means a lot! 🙏🏼
In short,
- We feel that responsible inclusion of ACM Publications into AI systems will positively impact global access to scientific research and better influence future work. The balance of protecting the integrity of the Digital Library vs the risk of continuing to be excluded from new ways that researchers discover information is a delicate one which requires careful consideration.🌍️
- We are aware of concerns around key issues such as attribution, hallucinations, and the uneven economic landscape among commercial AI providers. Therefore, we will evaluate both opportunities and risks very carefully before coming to a decision. ✒️
- Revenue is not, nor should it ever be, a primary driver for ACM reaching licensing agreements with AI providers. However, if additional revenue is generated it will be used as additional support for all the meaningful work that ACM does. 🔬
If you would like to share your thoughts, please use this link (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeq7MFM7TlSXIaIXQnIltiQeWE_w3cl36HFPwql4S7u-drmzg/viewform). ACM leadership will take your feedback into account while we develop and implement our AI content strategy over the coming months.
@ACM Interesting move considering the recent opinion piece: Wither ACM? Publish or Perish?
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3815435
I guess the author of that article is right in suggesting that ACM really is just a publishing house now and doesn't really represent a society of professionals.
@ACM
My filed reply:
LLMs consume key resources, funnel money to the super-rich, and take jobs from people who need them. They average-down the content they regurgitate, losing nuance and often get things quite wrong.
In use they will harm our members, and while they may broaden where our ideas spread, they'll do so with weaker expression and subtle errors.
It is at best too soon to do this. Quite probably it is morally wrong.
