The use of publicly available online texts in training AI: an ethical analysis of AI’s right to learn
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to discuss the ethical permissibility of using publicly available online texts in the training of AI. This practice has facilitated and accelerated the growth of AI technology, but it has also drawn accusations of exploiting authors and violating their intellectual property rights. Design/methodology/approach The discussion is based on the Kantian theory of ethics, a theory that is grounded in the duty to preserve and empower the autonomy of the human will. Findings Following from the duty to support human autonomy, the article makes two claims: First, AI should be granted the right to learn from public texts because the more AI learns, the better it assists humans in expanding their will. Second, AI’s right to learn should be conditional, not absolute. The article articulates three conditions that should be met prior to granting an AI system the right to learn from public texts: AI that uses public data must be freely available to the public, AI (and its developers) ought to educate the public on the uses and misuses of AI, and AI (and its developers) must remove personal information from the training data. Originality/value Under what conditions is it justifiable to use someone’s text without their permission? This very question is currently being examined in courts in the many lawsuits filed against AI companies. An ethical analysis of this question helps bridge the gap between the perspective of AI companies that claim to be using public texts for the public good and the perspectives accusing them of violating authors’ copyrights.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".