6 ms·

The analogy to humans is probably a trap. In the early days of software security there were a lot of analogies to physical penetration. These analogies mislead

The analogy to humans is probably a trap. In the early days of software security there were a lot of analogies to physical penetration. These analogies mislead and confused statutory facts with moral claims. In the wholeness of time, at least the adults now know that computer security is different and understand how the CFAA and related statutes work in practice. We also understand how laws that pre-dated computers interact with our new technological realities. In computer security, there's usually no need for analogy at this point. At least not once you find yourself in a courtroom. Models aren't human brains. The law will think of them differently and treat them differently. I'm not sure how these lawsuits and class actions will shake out, to be honest, but I know that the law will not think of LLMs the same way it thinks about a human at the pub.

ekidd 4y ago
> but I know that the law will not think of LLMs the same way it thinks about a human at the pub. Perhaps I am old and cynical, but I fear that we'll establish harsh new restrictions on LLMs—and then gradually apply those restrictions to humans over time. "I am sorry, you have read too much science fiction, and it has indirectly inspired your own writing. You owe mandatory royalties to a trade association." "Your paintings are clearly pointillist. You are infringing on the rights of the Monet estate."
- bioemerl 4y ago
  No need to be cynical or expect it to be slow. Multiple companies will leap at this precident if it is set. They've attempted to do it in the past a few times, but right to repair laws and such have kept them away. Imagine Nintendo banning emulators as one example.
- freejazz 4y ago
  It's long been a tenant of copyright law that genres or styles cannot be copyrighted. To frame the issue with LLMs as being of this nature, is to end run the problem, and just assume that the models are only taking the style or genre from a work. Given that these are algorithms and not sentient beings capable of thought, it's clearly the case that this is not what is occurring.
  - Kim_Bruning 4y ago
    > Given that these are algorithms and not sentient beings capable of thought, it's clearly the case that this is not what is occurring. We're not dealing with an either/or case here. The system is dealing with the problem in it's own way. “The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.” -- Edsger W. Dijkstra Previously people thought that non-human-systems couldn't win at Chess or Go either, or do mathematics, or understand speech. Just because a particular system doesn't work like a human, doesn't mean it can't meet or exceed (even dramatically exceed) human capabilities in some field.
    - freejazz 4y ago
      >We're not dealing with an either/or case here. The system is dealing with the problem in it's own way. LOL is this an actual response? What did you substantively say here? Because I don't see anything. >Previously people thought that non-human-systems couldn't win at Chess or Go either, or do mathematics, or understand speech. Just because a particular system doesn't work like a human, doesn't mean it can't meet or exceed (even dramatically exceed) human capabilities in some field. That's not a legal argument. I'm not sure how that isn't clear. But you can't go "Your honor, people thought no one would win at chess, therefore, this isn't copying because it is exhibiting thought" Do you read yourself at all?
      - Kim_Bruning 4y ago
        I can tell you're a lawyer-type-person. Sharp and harsh. Those are always fun to debate with! ;-) Do note that we are not in a court of law here. I'm not here to try to win legal arguments in a debate. I'm here to share knowledge and intuition. This also necessitates a different form of discussion. Getting down to it: I was not making a positive statement that machines can think. Rather I was refuting yours by arguing that whether or not machines can think is irrelevant. Your statement was ... "Given that these are algorithms and not sentient beings capable of thought, it's clearly the case that [only taking the style or genre from a work] is not what is occurring." This does not follow: you don't need to be a sentient being to do things that sentient beings also do. All through history people have made surprising mechanisms that have done things that were previously thought to be the domain of human intelligence. In fact, typically those mechanisms did those things very differently than humans did them, but that made them no less capable. Simply stating that a system is not sentient is insufficient to prove that it is capable or incapable of doing X. What the machine is actually doing here needs to be determined separately. But the particular argument "the machine can't do that because it is not sentient" does not hold.

ekidd 4y ago

> but I know that the law will not think of LLMs the same way it thinks about a human at the pub. Perhaps I am old and cynical, but I fear that we'll establish harsh new restrictions on LLMs—and then gradually apply those restrictions to humans over time. "I am sorry, you have read too much science fiction, and it has indirectly inspired your own writing. You owe mandatory royalties to a trade association." "Your paintings are clearly pointillist. You are infringing on the rights of the Monet estate."

bioemerl 4y ago
No need to be cynical or expect it to be slow. Multiple companies will leap at this precident if it is set. They've attempted to do it in the past a few times, but right to repair laws and such have kept them away. Imagine Nintendo banning emulators as one example.
freejazz 4y ago
It's long been a tenant of copyright law that genres or styles cannot be copyrighted. To frame the issue with LLMs as being of this nature, is to end run the problem, and just assume that the models are only taking the style or genre from a work. Given that these are algorithms and not sentient beings capable of thought, it's clearly the case that this is not what is occurring.
- Kim_Bruning 4y ago
  > Given that these are algorithms and not sentient beings capable of thought, it's clearly the case that this is not what is occurring. We're not dealing with an either/or case here. The system is dealing with the problem in it's own way. “The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.” -- Edsger W. Dijkstra Previously people thought that non-human-systems couldn't win at Chess or Go either, or do mathematics, or understand speech. Just because a particular system doesn't work like a human, doesn't mean it can't meet or exceed (even dramatically exceed) human capabilities in some field.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    >We're not dealing with an either/or case here. The system is dealing with the problem in it's own way. LOL is this an actual response? What did you substantively say here? Because I don't see anything. >Previously people thought that non-human-systems couldn't win at Chess or Go either, or do mathematics, or understand speech. Just because a particular system doesn't work like a human, doesn't mean it can't meet or exceed (even dramatically exceed) human capabilities in some field. That's not a legal argument. I'm not sure how that isn't clear. But you can't go "Your honor, people thought no one would win at chess, therefore, this isn't copying because it is exhibiting thought" Do you read yourself at all?
    - Kim_Bruning 4y ago
      I can tell you're a lawyer-type-person. Sharp and harsh. Those are always fun to debate with! ;-) Do note that we are not in a court of law here. I'm not here to try to win legal arguments in a debate. I'm here to share knowledge and intuition. This also necessitates a different form of discussion. Getting down to it: I was not making a positive statement that machines can think. Rather I was refuting yours by arguing that whether or not machines can think is irrelevant. Your statement was ... "Given that these are algorithms and not sentient beings capable of thought, it's clearly the case that [only taking the style or genre from a work] is not what is occurring." This does not follow: you don't need to be a sentient being to do things that sentient beings also do. All through history people have made surprising mechanisms that have done things that were previously thought to be the domain of human intelligence. In fact, typically those mechanisms did those things very differently than humans did them, but that made them no less capable. Simply stating that a system is not sentient is insufficient to prove that it is capable or incapable of doing X. What the machine is actually doing here needs to be determined separately. But the particular argument "the machine can't do that because it is not sentient" does not hold.