Thread

1. rramadass · 1789555749 · focus · HN ↗

   > Regardless of the true cost, it seems that professional mathematicians now need to wary about what they put into a LLM and think hard about how to disclose and publish a result.

   This is all but guaranteed now.

   Mathematicians/Scientists/Researchers need to stop sharing freely with "AI Companies" and have explicit clauses in place in their publications about not using their research without their explicit consent.

   There should be a clear legal distinction between using research data for AI model-training vs. another researcher using it.

   Come up with a legal framework, establish procedures for sharing and using others work and have a single scientific body in charge of enforcing it.

   1. nradov · 1789677392 · focus · HN ↗

      Just putting a clause in a publication won't prevent it from being used as training data. Information wants to be free.

      The frontier LLM vendors do sell enterprise licenses which contractually guarantee that your prompts won't be used for training. (Maybe they'll secretly violate the agreement but in principle it's legally enforceable.) Scholars and universities who care about credit and attribution will either have to purchase those licenses or run their own private open-weight LLM instances.

      1. oldsecondhand · 1789680944 · focus · HN ↗

         Even the $20 tier of ChatGPT has privacy settings that forbid using the user's data to be used for training. The question is, whether this setting is respected.

         1. arcanemachiner · 1789701616 · focus · HN ↗

            I assume the data is laundered into a format that qualifies as no longer being the "user's" data, then trained on.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.