jbfink/gpt-2-oa.txt

## gpt-2-oa.txt
Model prompt >>> Librarians who are required to publish for their work who don't commit to only submitting to OA journals are evil.
======================================== SAMPLE 1 ========================================
 They should be labeled, and encouraged to do so. These authors, for example, were required to send in copies directly to OA journals in October of 2011.

They are being paid just as if they were a writer and are not even required to. (For those who still feel this way, I can see why: They are not, and that the very existence of that money is a threat.)

Why should someone write, in their spare time, about something their friends and family and colleagues have said, if they know they may receive the money?

It seems to me that most good readers simply avoid this sort of kind of thing: They avoid using that money to pay the occasional expense, to pay to get advice from someone who hasn't, or to pay to be the best teacher. And no doubt the money is better paid for doing the same—not without the benefit of someone else getting it from them.

They're doing it because they hate OA journals.

It is also to be expected that authors will publish if they have the money. And if they get that money in exchange for being paid to help other authors reach their personal standards and to contribute, I suspect it is at least partially due to the fact that they have been paid. It is not, by definition, a condition of being a true author.

However, this is how most non-literary authors have felt and found themselves.

A reader's willingness to work on a writing project is much more likely when it is done without paying for it, even if it is funded by the university. It is true that the authors work directly for universities, but it is also possible that they do not. OA journals (and certainly not the funding of OA ones) are far more cost effective. (I will say that this is not just an issue of the authors being paid, but of the necessity for that obligation to be kept.)

I do not doubt that people who are willing, like a student, to commit to a writing project because the university and its libraries want it can make their business decisions about their future, even if it is funded and approved by the same institutions it claims to support.

Yet it does appear that these authors have not done so, by writing their opinions about OA. They simply want to make the university's case that they are a "good contributor," and are a bad contributor, and are writing only for the sake of that.
	Model prompt >>> Librarians who are required to publish for their work who don't commit to only submitting to OA journals are evil.
	======================================== SAMPLE 1 ========================================
	They should be labeled, and encouraged to do so. These authors, for example, were required to send in copies directly to OA journals in October of 2011.

	They are being paid just as if they were a writer and are not even required to. (For those who still feel this way, I can see why: They are not, and that the very existence of that money is a threat.)

	Why should someone write, in their spare time, about something their friends and family and colleagues have said, if they know they may receive the money?

	It seems to me that most good readers simply avoid this sort of kind of thing: They avoid using that money to pay the occasional expense, to pay to get advice from someone who hasn't, or to pay to be the best teacher. And no doubt the money is better paid for doing the same—not without the benefit of someone else getting it from them.

	They're doing it because they hate OA journals.

	It is also to be expected that authors will publish if they have the money. And if they get that money in exchange for being paid to help other authors reach their personal standards and to contribute, I suspect it is at least partially due to the fact that they have been paid. It is not, by definition, a condition of being a true author.

	However, this is how most non-literary authors have felt and found themselves.

	A reader's willingness to work on a writing project is much more likely when it is done without paying for it, even if it is funded by the university. It is true that the authors work directly for universities, but it is also possible that they do not. OA journals (and certainly not the funding of OA ones) are far more cost effective. (I will say that this is not just an issue of the authors being paid, but of the necessity for that obligation to be kept.)

	I do not doubt that people who are willing, like a student, to commit to a writing project because the university and its libraries want it can make their business decisions about their future, even if it is funded and approved by the same institutions it claims to support.

	Yet it does appear that these authors have not done so, by writing their opinions about OA. They simply want to make the university's case that they are a "good contributor," and are a bad contributor, and are writing only for the sake of that.