4 ms·

This is the "guns don't kill people, people do" argument. Not saying that that proves things one way or another, just that assigning responsibility is not reall

by kmod 3y ago

This is the "guns don't kill people, people do" argument. Not saying that that proves things one way or another, just that assigning responsibility is not really a cut and dry question and many people think that it's important to look prior to the final interaction IANAL but I believe in the US tools that are designed to circumvent copyright are illegal, which makes sense to me inasmuch as one believes that copyright should be protected

fnordpiglet 3y ago
Except these models are not designed to circumvent copyright, in fact their primary purpose is to generate non-copyright and non-copyrightable output. It can be induced to product facsimiles of copyright material, but that’s explicitly not the purpose or intent and requires positive action on the users behalf to occur.
- kmod 3y ago
  I'm saying `A => B` (something should be illegal if it's primarily for crime) and you're saying `-A` (LLMs are not primarily for crime), which is not really a disagreement. My point is disagreeing with the GGP who argued that `-B regardless of A` (LLMs should not be a crime regardless of whether they facilitate crime, because it is the end-user who is committing the crime). I happen to mostly believe the conclusion (`-B`) but not the particular argument.
DennisP 3y ago
Photocopy machines are great at making copies of copyrighted material, and are completely legal in the US. The entire internet routinely makes copies every time you visit a web page. What's illegal in the US is selling tools for breaking DRM: https://www.androidpolice.com/2018/10/26/us-copyright-office-says-circumventing-drm-repair-certain-electronics-including-phones-smart-speakers-now-legal/ https://www.androidpolice.com/2018/10/26/us-copyright-office... From a quick google, open source tools for breaking DRM are legal, and so is breaking DRM for personal use: https://www.google.com/search?q=are+drm+defeating+tools+illegal+in+us&oq=are+drm+defeating+tools+illegal+in+us https://www.google.com/search?q=are+drm+defeating+tools+ille...

by kmod 3y ago

fnordpiglet 3y ago

Except these models are not designed to circumvent copyright, in fact their primary purpose is to generate non-copyright and non-copyrightable output. It can be induced to product facsimiles of copyright material, but that’s explicitly not the purpose or intent and requires positive action on the users behalf to occur.

kmod 3y ago
I'm saying `A => B` (something should be illegal if it's primarily for crime) and you're saying `-A` (LLMs are not primarily for crime), which is not really a disagreement. My point is disagreeing with the GGP who argued that `-B regardless of A` (LLMs should not be a crime regardless of whether they facilitate crime, because it is the end-user who is committing the crime). I happen to mostly believe the conclusion (`-B`) but not the particular argument.

DennisP 3y ago

Photocopy machines are great at making copies of copyrighted material, and are completely legal in the US. The entire internet routinely makes copies every time you visit a web page. What's illegal in the US is selling tools for breaking DRM: https://www.androidpolice.com/2018/10/26/us-copyright-office-says-circumventing-drm-repair-certain-electronics-including-phones-smart-speakers-now-legal/ https://www.androidpolice.com/2018/10/26/us-copyright-office... From a quick google, open source tools for breaking DRM are legal, and so is breaking DRM for personal use: https://www.google.com/search?q=are+drm+defeating+tools+illegal+in+us&oq=are+drm+defeating+tools+illegal+in+us https://www.google.com/search?q=are+drm+defeating+tools+ille...