@mcp@poliversity.it cover
@mcp@poliversity.it avatar

mcp

@[email protected]

Open science, Kant scholarship and emancipation from digital minority.
Also: https://qoto.org/@mcp_
Orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3089-6218

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. View on remote instance

ingorohlfing , to AcademicChatter group
@ingorohlfing@mastodon.social avatar

Elsevier unveils Scopus for research reviews | Times Higher Education (THE)
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/elsevier-launches-scopus-ai-bot-literature-reviews I couldn't find information about pricing, but it seems safe to assume it is not for free. Meaning institutions have to pay for a tool that likely has been 1/ @academicchatter

mcp ,
@mcp@poliversity.it avatar

@ingorohlfing @academicchatter If scientific authors have given away their copyright to Elsevier for free for decades, and their institutions have bought back their texts at outrageous prices, why shouldn't they accept paying similarly outrageous prices for their brand-new bullshit generator (a.k.a or )? https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/elsevier-launches-scopus-ai-bot-literature-reviews

mcp ,
@mcp@poliversity.it avatar

@sposadelvento @ingorohlfing @academicchatter The problem is that AI is a function of concentrated technological capacities and capabilities (https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/publications/report-ai-in-the-public-interest-confronting-the-monopoly-threat), and even if the data and texts as data were public, as it should be, the monopolies (unless broken) would still have the upper hand in computational power.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • kbinchat
  • All magazines
    •