Send Link mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Link digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Australian writers angry, publisher asking them to sign AI
agreements (Stephen Loosley)
2. Social media firms criticise ?irrational? exemption of
YouTube from under-16s ban (Stephen Loosley)
3. Re: O/t: Henry Lawson Colonial Poet (David)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2025 11:47:42 +1030
From: Stephen Loosley <[email protected]>
To: "link" <[email protected]>
Subject: [LINK] Australian writers angry, publisher asking them to
sign AI agreements
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sign our own death warrant?: Australian writers angry after Melbourne publisher
asks them to sign AI agreements
Exclusive: Authors asked to allow Black Inc to use their work for ?training,
testing, validation and the deployment of a machine learning? system
Follow our Australia news live blog for latest updates
By Kelly Burke Arts reporter Wed 5 Mar 2025
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/mar/05/black-inc-melbourne-publisher-ai-agreements-writers-anger
Australian writers, literary agents, and the industry?s peak body have
expressed concern after Black Inc Books asked its authors to consent to their
work being used to train artificial intelligence.
The Melbourne publisher, which produces the Quarterly Essay as well as fiction
and nonfiction by prominent Australian writers, gave them until Wednesday to
enter into third-party agreements with an unnamed AI company.
The writers were asked to grant Black Inc ?the right to reproduce or use, adapt
and exploit the work in connection with the development of any software
program, including, without limitation, training, testing, validation and the
deployment of a machine learning or generative artificial intelligence system?.
Under the deal the publisher will split the net receipts with the author 50/50.
The Guardian has confirmed that a number of writers published by Black Inc
received the request to alter their contracts last week.
The documents sent by the company?s publishing coordinator promise that, by
authorising their works to be used by an unspecified AI company, authors would
unlock ?new revenue streams? with their works receiving ?increased visibility
and credibility?.
[Caption: Don?t gift our work to AI billionaires: Mark Haddon, Michael Rosen
and other creatives urge government
?I feel like we?re being asked to sign our own death warrant,? said Laura Jean
McKay, author of Holiday in Cambodia, published with Black Inc a decade ago and
shortlisted for three literary awards.
McKay says she had received the addendum to her contract on Friday, and was
worried that three business days was not long enough to decipher what Black Inc
was asking her to sign.
?I was very concerned that there was absolutely no prior discussion ? this is a
very unregulated frontier that we?re moving into. And the Australian government
still doesn?t have clear guidelines and has no real regulations for generative
AI.?
Lyn Tranter, a veteran agent and the owner of Australian Literary Management,
said she was ?totally and utterly perplexed? by the publisher pursuing consent
from its stable of writers in that timeframe.
?It?s a serious matter,? she said. ?[AI] is not included in the original
contract, so an addendum has to be done, and I think that?s something that has
to be treated seriously and looked into and weighed up.
?To be honest, I don?t think they [Black Inc] know what they?re doing.?
The Australian Society of Authors said Black Inc?s request for its authors to
agree to such a broad grant of rights within four days was ?outrageous?.
?What is the rush?? asked the ASA?s chief executive, Lucy Hayward.
?We don?t know who Black Inc will sub-license to, what conditions they will
impose, or what the fee will be. Asking for blanket permission for all future
licensing ? particularly under time pressure ? is unnecessary and unfair.?
Hayward also said the 50/50 split ? similar to the offer HarperCollins put
before its stable of writers last year ? did not represent fair compensation.
?The ASA supports the US Authors Guild?s guidance on a fair split for AI
licensing deals ? 75% to the author and 25% to the publisher on the basis that
it is the authors? expression and ideas ? the text ? that are of most value in
AI training, and it is authors? and illustrators? work that is likely to be
displaced or supplanted by this technology,? she said.
[Caption: I won?t be signing anything yet Hamish McDonald]
A statement from Black Inc?s head of marketing and publicity, Kate Nash, said
the opt-in agreement granted it permission to negotiate the terms and
conditions it deemed reasonable with ?reputable? AI companies.
The statement did not say which AI companies it was negotiating with.
Nash said ?many? writers had granted Black Inc permission to sub-license their
work in this way.
?We believe authors should be credited and compensated appropriately and that
safeguards are necessary to protect ownership rights in response to increasing
industrial automation.?
A Melbourne literary agent, Jenny Darling, questioned why publishers were
brokering deals with AI companies at all.
?Publishers are in the business of publishing books,? Darling said. ?Why are
they entering into agreements with AI companies? Is their business not big
enough, don?t they know how to make money publishing books any more??
Tranter said: ?The industry is in such serious shit at the moment ? what with
the takeover of Text and Affirm, it?s just the tip of the iceberg. I spoke to
[a publishing colleague] and he said to me, ?You know, we?re dead. You know,
it?s just going down the toilet.??
The journalist Hamish McDonald, whose second book published by Black Inc ?
Melanesia: Travels in Black Oceania ? is due to be released this month, said
the AI deal had come ?out of the blue?.
?They want us to all sign by tomorrow,? he said on Monday. ?I?m asking Black
Inc for more information. I won?t be signing anything yet.?
[Photo caption: ChatGPT, can you write my new novel for me? Och aye, ye
preenin? Sassenach
Gareth Rubin]
McKay said the vagueness of the offer was understandable ?because I don?t think
they actually know what they?re getting into?.
?This is uncharted territory. It?s an unregulated sort of wild west climate of
AI advancement ? it?s a notoriously and purposefully unregulated industry. And
trillion-dollar companies like Meta and Google and Telegram are stridently
oppositional to regulation.?
The Australian government has so far only conducted an inquiry into the use of
AI in the Australian education system, with the house standing committee on
employment, education and training releasing its final report in August.
The UK government has just completed a 10-week consultation period examining
how to redraft copyright laws in the publishing industry to adjust to AI
technology.
--
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2025 12:41:15 +1030
From: Stephen Loosley <[email protected]>
To: "link" <[email protected]>
Subject: [LINK] Social media firms criticise ?irrational? exemption of
YouTube from under-16s ban
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Social media firms criticise ?irrational? exemption of YouTube from Australia?s
under-16s ban
Meta, TikTok and Snapchat release statements in campaign protesting Labor?s
handling of contested legislation
By Josh Butler Wed 5 Mar 2025
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/mar/05/australia-government-social-media-ban-youtube-exemption-criticism-statements
Meta, TikTok and Snapchat have criticised the Albanese government?s handling of
the social media ban for under-16s, launching a campaign against what they have
labelled an ?irrational? and ?shortsighted? decision to exempt YouTube from the
contested legislation.
The three tech platforms made submissions to a government consultation process
on the ban ? rushed through parliament at the end of 2024 with little inquiry ?
calling for a re-evaluation of Labor?s approach and demanding that YouTube be
subject to the same restrictions they will be.
?It is illogical to restrict two platforms while exempting the third,? TikTok?s
director of public policy in Australia and New Zealand, Ella Woods-Joyce, wrote
in the company?s submission. ?It would be akin to banning the sale of soft
drinks to minors but exempting Coca-Cola.?
YouTube was initially expected to be included in the ban but, after lobbying
efforts, the Google-owned platform was exempted. In her second reading speech
on the bill, the communications minister, Michelle Rowland, said exemptions
would be given to services including ReachOut?s PeerChat, Kids Helpline?s
MyCircle, Google Classroom, YouTube, ?and other apps that can be shown to
function like social media in their interactivity but operate with a
significant purpose to enable young people to get the education and health
support they need?.
The ban is due to come into effect in December, with social media platforms
required ?to take reasonable steps to prevent? under-16s holding accounts on
their services. It remains unclear how the rules will be applied or enforced
and what ? if any ? additional personal data Australians may have to hand over.
Guardian Australia understands that an age-assurance trial, run by the
government, remains in its early stages.
Meta (which owns Instagram and Facebook), TikTok and Snapchat published
statements at midnight Australian time in what appeared to be a coordinated
campaign against YouTube?s exemption.
It presented another front in the tech industry?s fights with the Albanese
government, after criticism from the X owner, Elon Musk, over takedown notices
and unrest about the news bargaining incentive.
The three tech companies argued in separate submissions to the government?s
consultation process that YouTube functioned similarly to their services and
should not be treated differently.
TikTok gave the strongest criticism, calling YouTube?s carve-out a ?sweetheart
deal?, and saying it was ?irrational and indefensible?.
?While experts may debate the merits of restricting teens? access to social
media, now that Parliament has delivered its verdict, Australians deserve a
system that works and industry deserves a level playing field,? the platform?s
statement said.
?Handing one major social media platform a sweetheart deal of this nature ?
while subjecting every other platform in Australia to stringent compliance
obligations ? would be illogical, anti-competitive, and shortsighted.?
TikTok?s statement suggested the government had ?begun its analysis from the
starting position that YouTube must be exempt and then attempted,
half-heartedly, to reverse-engineer defensible supporting evidence?.
Meta accused the government of a ?disregard of evidence and transparency? in
deciding how the ban applied, claiming YouTube?s exemption ?makes a mockery of
the Government?s stated intention, when passing the age ban law, to protect
young people?.
Meta also claimed the government was breaching its commitments to public
consultation.
The companies pointed to a February report from the eSafety Commission noting
that YouTube was the most popular service among children aged 13 to 15, with
73% in that age group reporting having used YouTube in 2024.
Meta said: ?Given YouTube is the most popular social media service among young
Australians, its exclusion from the ban law is in direct contradiction to the
government?s stated intent?.
A Meta spokesperson said in a separate statement that it wanted ?equal
application of the law?.
?We are concerned the government?s rapid, closed-door consultation process on
the minimum age law is undermining necessary discourse,? the spokesperson said.
?A young person with a YouTube account experiences the very features cited by
the government to justify the law, including algorithmic content
recommendations, autoplay, social interaction features, and persistent
notifications, as well as exposure to harmful content.?
TikTok?s statement said YouTube?s Shorts operated in a similar way to TikTok?s
feed and Instagram?s story function.
?Even when YouTube as a whole is compared alongside TikTok, there is nothing
that justifies the Government?s different and punitive treatment of our
platform,? it said. ?The Government?s arguments citing unique educative value
do not survive even the most cursory of closer examinations.?
Snapchat?s submission repeated its previous position that it should be treated
as a messaging service and therefore be exempt from the ban. But it argued that
as Snapchat was captured the rules due to its own ?story? function, YouTube
should as well.
--
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2025 15:04:15 +1100
From: David <[email protected]>
To: link <[email protected]>
Cc: Stephen Loosley <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [LINK] O/t: Henry Lawson Colonial Poet
Message-ID: <14160311.2vocr9iq0E@ulysses>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
I think a comparison between the Henry Lawson poem and the one by ChatGPT
illustrates the difference between human intelligence and current AI
technology, and the big difference is consciousness & self-awareness in
relation to others and our individual worlds.
The Lawson poem sets out to make a point: that Lawson personally, on the basis
of experience and intuition, anticipates a war (WWI),
> So I sit and write and ponder, while the house is deaf and dumb,
> Seeing visions "over yonder" of the war I know must come.\
that he considers our abstract, foundation values are at stake:
> No - no ranting song is needed, and no meeting, flag or fuss -
> In the future, still unheeded, shall the spirit come to us!
>
> Without feathers, drum or riot on the day that is to be,
> We shall march down, very quiet, to our stations by the sea.
and he urges:
> While the bitter parties stifle every voice that warns of war,
> Every man should own a rifle and have cartridges in store!
In contrast, I suggest any literary assessment of the ChatGPG poem would class
it as doggerel, which Wikipedia defines as "poetry[1] that is irregular in
rhythm[2] and in rhyme[3], often deliberately for burlesque[4] or comic effect.
Alternatively, it can mean verse which has a monotonous rhythm, easy rhyme,
and cheap or trivial meaning." It's the latter meaning I apply in this case.
The metre ("the basic rhythmic structure[5] of a verse[6] or lines in
verse[7]") and the rhyming is excellent. But the content is trivial. In fact
the content was mechanically correlated and assembled from the vast database of
articles & analyses on that now-infamous meeting which is presumably available
to ChatGPG, supported by a library of background data.
Large Language Models using AI aside, "AI" based machines are essentially very
large correlation engines, as a few minutes reading about the Microsoft Azure
programming language will confirm. I don't doubt the value of AI for a moment,
but it must be properly understood.
Linkers interested in this subject might refer back to the Link thread "One
for the Numerologists and Mystics..." originally passed on by me with that
rather dismissive subject line, which listed some unusual numerical properties
of the number "2025". Antony Barry then queried PerplexityAI which revealed
many more, including:
> **Sum of Consecutive Primes**
> Interestingly, 2025 can be represented as the sum of five consecutive prime
> numbers: 397 + 401 + 409 + 419 + 421 = 2025[7]. This connection to prime
> numbers adds to its number-theoretical significance.
However Sylvano spotted an error (397 + 401 + 409 + 419 + 421 = 2027).
And I then realised that this is a natural correlation-error. The sum of the
first five prime numbers beginning one prime earlier (389) does add up to 2015,
thus: 389 + 397 + 401 + 409 + 419 = 2015 and the difference (10) can easily be
found by differencing nearby primes.
On Saturday, 4 January 2025 4:42:59 PM AEDT Stephen then nicely finished this
unexpectedly fruitful thread::
> AI Is Usually Bad At Math. Here?s Why It Matters
>
> By John Werner, an MIT Senior Fellow. Updated Oct 7, 2024
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwerner/2024/10/07/ai-is-usually-bad-at-math-heres-what-will-happen-if-it-gets-better/
>
> We?re seeing some new developments in AI models that are shedding light on
> one of the technology?s most prominent gaps ? its relative inability to do
> math well.
>
> Some experts note that AI is dysfunctional at math. It tends to produce wrong
> answers, and can be slow to correct them. [...]
Apologies for this long response, but it's not a simple subject and we haven't
gone anywhere near neurology and conscious self-awareness yet...
_David Lochrin_
--------------------
> "Every Man Should have a Rifle"
> By Henry Lawson
>
> So I sit and write and ponder, while the house is deaf and dumb,
> Seeing visions "over yonder" of the war I know must come.
>
> In the corner - not a vision - but a sign for coming days
> Stand a box of ammunition and a rifle in green baize.
>
> And in this, the living present, let the word go through the land,
> Every tradesman, clerk and peasant should have these two things at hand.
>
> No - no ranting song is needed, and no meeting, flag or fuss -
> In the future, still unheeded, shall the spirit come to us!
>
> Without feathers, drum or riot on the day that is to be,
> We shall march down, very quiet, to our stations by the sea.
>
> While the bitter parties stifle every voice that warns of war,
> Every man should own a rifle and have cartridges in store!
>
> Scheme AABBCC DDEEFF
> Poetic Form
> Closest metre Iambic heptameter
> Characters 746
> Words 148
> Sentences 7
> Stanzas 2
> Stanza Lengths 6, 6
> Lines Amount 12
> 98 Views
>
> Henry Lawson 1867 - 1922
--------
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poetry
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poetry#Rhythm
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhyme
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlesque
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhythm
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verse_(poetry)
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_(poetry)
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Link mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
------------------------------
End of Link Digest, Vol 388, Issue 6
************************************
