4 ms·

In that sentence, prejudiced is a pejorative way to say opinionated. I assert that existing legal systems do not suffice. Human governments and courts have sho

by mLuby 4y ago

In that sentence, prejudiced is a pejorative way to say opinionated. I assert that existing legal systems do not suffice. Human governments and courts have shown themselves to be near-sighted, slow, and even corrupt when it comes to rapidly advancing lucrative technology (except perhaps when that tech is a weapon).

AmericanChopper 4y ago
Prejudiced is exactly the correct word to use, as you’re stating a preconceived judgment. Expressing an opinion would be different, you’re simply stating a controversial point of view as if it were a fact, and attempting to reframe the debate based upon the presupposition.
- mLuby 4y ago
  That's the technical meaning, not the more relevant culturally loaded meaning. If I say someone "voted in a prejudiced way," it's technically true if they'd already decided how they'd vote before they did so, but most people would understand my meaning to be that their vote was motivated by bigotry of some kind.
  - AmericanChopper 4y ago
    The meaning is perfectly clear from the context of my comment. The comment presupposes a judgement for what is probably the most controversial question in the entire debate.
williamcotton 4y ago
It’s not pejorative, it’s a little stuffy and old fashioned, like someone just finished reading an essay by Edmond Burke or something, but in that context it is hardly akin to the other meanings. Oh, and I assert that anyone who doesn’t think our legal system can properly decide who if anyone is being wronged by these tools is just plain ignorant of the law.
- mLuby 4y ago
  Fair enough. I submit the following well-known examples to support my assertion. What are your counterexamples? Uber/AirBnB facilitating illegal activity but growing large enough to force legalization. Facebook et al providing data and conduits to influence elections.
  - williamcotton 4y ago
    Oh boy... Well here's some basics about the law. Broadly speaking, a trial requires a plaintiff who makes a claim of a wrong allegedly committed by a defendant. In the United States, which at the federal and state level (spare Louisiana) follows English common law jurisprudence, there are two kinds of wrongs: Private and public. Broadly speaking, public wrongs are committed against "the community", while private wrongs are committed against an individual. So if we're talking about say, Stable Diffusion, we can reference the actual claim of the private wrong being made and the details of the case. The plaintiffs are some artists. The defendants are some companies who created a ML model. The claim is that they were wronged for copyright infringement, DMCA violations, common law and statuary rights to publicity, etc. For copyright infringement, the defense will attempt to show that SD is fair use and their reference Sony v Universal, Google v Authors Guild, Baker v Selden, ABC v Aerokiller. The plaintiffs will argue it's not fair use while also attempting to show the damages to the marketplace for competing works. There will be strategies on both sides for the other claimed wrongs. I don't see anything that the legal system can't place mainly into existing frameworks while also adding to the existing corpus of case law and helping to further define what is and isn't considered a wrong for future courts when it comes to training ML models on published works. So I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say about Uber, AirBnB or Facebook because those just sound like a lot of political opinions as they are not legally framed. If you and other people want representatives to write new laws about social media companies, ride sharing services or short-term rentals, well go right ahead! IMO, no new laws are necessary for the two "high-profile" (hah!) cases against Stable Diffusion and Copilot. I'm also pretty sure that the defendants will successfully prove to the courts that these tools are indeed fair use. Politically, I would want my representatives to argue against legislation that would change such an interpretation!

by mLuby 4y ago

AmericanChopper 4y ago

Prejudiced is exactly the correct word to use, as you’re stating a preconceived judgment. Expressing an opinion would be different, you’re simply stating a controversial point of view as if it were a fact, and attempting to reframe the debate based upon the presupposition.

mLuby 4y ago
That's the technical meaning, not the more relevant culturally loaded meaning. If I say someone "voted in a prejudiced way," it's technically true if they'd already decided how they'd vote before they did so, but most people would understand my meaning to be that their vote was motivated by bigotry of some kind.
- AmericanChopper 4y ago
  The meaning is perfectly clear from the context of my comment. The comment presupposes a judgement for what is probably the most controversial question in the entire debate.

williamcotton 4y ago

It’s not pejorative, it’s a little stuffy and old fashioned, like someone just finished reading an essay by Edmond Burke or something, but in that context it is hardly akin to the other meanings. Oh, and I assert that anyone who doesn’t think our legal system can properly decide who if anyone is being wronged by these tools is just plain ignorant of the law.

mLuby 4y ago
Fair enough. I submit the following well-known examples to support my assertion. What are your counterexamples? Uber/AirBnB facilitating illegal activity but growing large enough to force legalization. Facebook et al providing data and conduits to influence elections.
- williamcotton 4y ago
  Oh boy... Well here's some basics about the law. Broadly speaking, a trial requires a plaintiff who makes a claim of a wrong allegedly committed by a defendant. In the United States, which at the federal and state level (spare Louisiana) follows English common law jurisprudence, there are two kinds of wrongs: Private and public. Broadly speaking, public wrongs are committed against "the community", while private wrongs are committed against an individual. So if we're talking about say, Stable Diffusion, we can reference the actual claim of the private wrong being made and the details of the case. The plaintiffs are some artists. The defendants are some companies who created a ML model. The claim is that they were wronged for copyright infringement, DMCA violations, common law and statuary rights to publicity, etc. For copyright infringement, the defense will attempt to show that SD is fair use and their reference Sony v Universal, Google v Authors Guild, Baker v Selden, ABC v Aerokiller. The plaintiffs will argue it's not fair use while also attempting to show the damages to the marketplace for competing works. There will be strategies on both sides for the other claimed wrongs. I don't see anything that the legal system can't place mainly into existing frameworks while also adding to the existing corpus of case law and helping to further define what is and isn't considered a wrong for future courts when it comes to training ML models on published works. So I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say about Uber, AirBnB or Facebook because those just sound like a lot of political opinions as they are not legally framed. If you and other people want representatives to write new laws about social media companies, ride sharing services or short-term rentals, well go right ahead! IMO, no new laws are necessary for the two "high-profile" (hah!) cases against Stable Diffusion and Copilot. I'm also pretty sure that the defendants will successfully prove to the courts that these tools are indeed fair use. Politically, I would want my representatives to argue against legislation that would change such an interpretation!