4 ms·

Source code is a form of literature; software-being-executed is not. It might be permissible for me to write a program that steals credentials and holds them fo

Source code is a form of literature; software-being-executed is not. It might be permissible for me to write a program that steals credentials and holds them for ransom, but actually running it would not be. Thus I don’t see why it would be unbelievable that training or inference of large language models might, plausibly, be limited in some way by law.

skissane 3y ago
> It might be permissible for me to write a program that steals credentials and holds them for ransom, but actually running it would not be. Because that’s communicating with a third party, no longer limited to the privacy of your own home. Fraud, extortion, etc, go beyond the bounds of accepted free expression. > Thus I don’t see why it would be unbelievable that training or inference of large language models might, plausibly, be limited in some way by law. What’s the fundamental difference between training an AI to generate propaganda and generating it by hand? If freedom of expression protects the latter, why does it not protect the former too?
- mrtranscendence 3y ago
  OK, what about this? It’s also illegal to use a AI model to generate realistic child pornography, even in the privacy of your own home. > If freedom of expression protects the latter, why does it not protect the former too? It’s legal for me to achieve altered states via meditation; why is it illegal to use LSD? Arguably it shouldn’t be, but it is. It seems like methods matter, even when it comes to expression.
  - skissane 3y ago
    > OK, what about this? It’s also illegal to use a AI model to generate realistic child pornography, even in the privacy of your own home. False in the US - in the 2002 case of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the Supreme Court ruled that “virtual child pornography” is protected by the 1st Amendment. True in some other jurisdictions, including my own country (Australia). However, I think Australian laws on this topic go way too far - in Australia, people have been convicted of child pornography offences purely for publishing offensive remarks about child abuse victims. While I agree it is wrong to make such remarks, I think it is massive overkill to prosecute them as child pornography.
    - defrost 3y ago
      > in Australia, people have been convicted of child pornography offences purely for publishing offensive remarks about child abuse victims. I'd love to see a cite to the Court case on this - while I don't doubt that you've heard this it does sound an awful lot like a Sky 'News' after Dark pearl clutching misrepresentation of an almost but not quite actual event.
      - skissane 3y ago
        I’m talking about this case - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-12/nicolaas-bester-sentenced-over-social-media-comments-child-abuse/7083524 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-12/nicolaas-bester-sente... I have no sympathy for the defendant, who is absolute scum of the earth. But, as a matter of principle, I don’t think it is right that posting an offensive Facebook comment is legally the same offence (“producing child exploitation material”) as filming heinous crimes against children. If they’d prosecuted him for harassment instead-he’s currently facing trial on harassment charges against the same victim-I’d have no objection.
        defrost 3y ago
        I still would like to pull the transcript ... > A former teacher at a private girls school in Hobart will return to jail after describing a sexual relationship with a former student as "awesome" on social media. It's the after that does a lot of lifting there, but it's certainly not "because". The article specifically notes: > Nicolaas Ockert Bester, 63, has been sentenced to four months in jail for producing child exploitation material. and I have a certain suspicion that his comment attracted attention resulting in charges based on fresh unearthed and "off book" evidence - off book in the sense that it was discussed in Court but not made public due to small towns and personal details of those involved who may now still be under age. (ie. he's been at it again and that's not being reported to keep eyes from what is likely a small circle of potential victims) I'm not trying to pick a fight here but there's often an information gap in cases involving children here in Australia, in my opinion largely for very good reasons.

skissane 3y ago

> It might be permissible for me to write a program that steals credentials and holds them for ransom, but actually running it would not be. Because that’s communicating with a third party, no longer limited to the privacy of your own home. Fraud, extortion, etc, go beyond the bounds of accepted free expression. > Thus I don’t see why it would be unbelievable that training or inference of large language models might, plausibly, be limited in some way by law. What’s the fundamental difference between training an AI to generate propaganda and generating it by hand? If freedom of expression protects the latter, why does it not protect the former too?

mrtranscendence 3y ago
OK, what about this? It’s also illegal to use a AI model to generate realistic child pornography, even in the privacy of your own home. > If freedom of expression protects the latter, why does it not protect the former too? It’s legal for me to achieve altered states via meditation; why is it illegal to use LSD? Arguably it shouldn’t be, but it is. It seems like methods matter, even when it comes to expression.
- skissane 3y ago
  > OK, what about this? It’s also illegal to use a AI model to generate realistic child pornography, even in the privacy of your own home. False in the US - in the 2002 case of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the Supreme Court ruled that “virtual child pornography” is protected by the 1st Amendment. True in some other jurisdictions, including my own country (Australia). However, I think Australian laws on this topic go way too far - in Australia, people have been convicted of child pornography offences purely for publishing offensive remarks about child abuse victims. While I agree it is wrong to make such remarks, I think it is massive overkill to prosecute them as child pornography.
  - defrost 3y ago
    > in Australia, people have been convicted of child pornography offences purely for publishing offensive remarks about child abuse victims. I'd love to see a cite to the Court case on this - while I don't doubt that you've heard this it does sound an awful lot like a Sky 'News' after Dark pearl clutching misrepresentation of an almost but not quite actual event.
    - skissane 3y ago
      I’m talking about this case - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-12/nicolaas-bester-sentenced-over-social-media-comments-child-abuse/7083524 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-12/nicolaas-bester-sente... I have no sympathy for the defendant, who is absolute scum of the earth. But, as a matter of principle, I don’t think it is right that posting an offensive Facebook comment is legally the same offence (“producing child exploitation material”) as filming heinous crimes against children. If they’d prosecuted him for harassment instead-he’s currently facing trial on harassment charges against the same victim-I’d have no objection.
      - defrost 3y ago
        I still would like to pull the transcript ... > A former teacher at a private girls school in Hobart will return to jail after describing a sexual relationship with a former student as "awesome" on social media. It's the after that does a lot of lifting there, but it's certainly not "because". The article specifically notes: > Nicolaas Ockert Bester, 63, has been sentenced to four months in jail for producing child exploitation material. and I have a certain suspicion that his comment attracted attention resulting in charges based on fresh unearthed and "off book" evidence - off book in the sense that it was discussed in Court but not made public due to small towns and personal details of those involved who may now still be under age. (ie. he's been at it again and that's not being reported to keep eyes from what is likely a small circle of potential victims) I'm not trying to pick a fight here but there's often an information gap in cases involving children here in Australia, in my opinion largely for very good reasons.