4 ms·

IMHO no because LLM's are not legal persons and most likely will never be, so they can't acquire or operate under laws, privileges and agreements simply because

by lewhoo 3y ago

IMHO no because LLM's are not legal persons and most likely will never be, so they can't acquire or operate under laws, privileges and agreements simply because they exists.

virgildotcodes 3y ago
Yeah I agree that legal personhood for LLMs at this point is far-fetched. This would be a separate argument, though, from the notion I responded to above that the difference in the processes of a human mind and LLM are the reason why "learning" from copyrighted material is a violation of copyright in one case and not the other.
- lewhoo 3y ago
  (IANAL) I'm not sure if I understand correctly, but I don't think so. Since LLM is not a person in the legal term it really doesn't matter what the difference is. There may be virtually no difference but I imagine the discussion would still be academic. For example: animals aren't granted rights just because they are in some instances similar or in other instances even identical to humans. Primates aren't allowed to walk everywhere humans can just because they posses the ability to walk on two legs. In my view the biggest issue to raise is the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use). The most spectacular example of damage would be stackoverflow, thought stackoverflow content is not copyrighted. I think there is little doubt that LLM's drive attention from original sources. That might be deemed damaging, especially in the long run.
  - 8note 3y ago
    Stack overflow content is certainly copyrighted, but the copyright is owned by the questioners and answerers, not stack overflow. There's no damage to the potential market or value of the works because they're given away for free by their owners.
    - lewhoo 3y ago
      There's no damage to the potential market or value of the works because they're given away for free by their owners. There may be, because technically copy/pasting SO code is governed by CC BY-SA 4.0 license which requires attribution and things aren't so obvious especially for commercial purpose.
pixl97 3y ago
But a business can (at least in the US)?
- lewhoo 3y ago
  But by business we mean an organization of people.
  - Filligree 3y ago
    For the moment. How many years until we see the first person-less business? I’m sure there’ll be a human on the books, on paper.
    - telotortium 3y ago
      If a human is willing to be put on the line for any errors the LLM makes, I don't see why a person-less business wouldn't be allowed. The legal system won't tolerate a business where they can't pursue a human in the case of wrongdoing or liability. Something like a DAO won't be allowed in the near future, though.

by lewhoo 3y ago

IMHO no because LLM's are not legal persons and most likely will never be, so they can't acquire or operate under laws, privileges and agreements simply because they exists.

virgildotcodes 3y ago

Yeah I agree that legal personhood for LLMs at this point is far-fetched. This would be a separate argument, though, from the notion I responded to above that the difference in the processes of a human mind and LLM are the reason why "learning" from copyrighted material is a violation of copyright in one case and not the other.

lewhoo 3y ago
(IANAL) I'm not sure if I understand correctly, but I don't think so. Since LLM is not a person in the legal term it really doesn't matter what the difference is. There may be virtually no difference but I imagine the discussion would still be academic. For example: animals aren't granted rights just because they are in some instances similar or in other instances even identical to humans. Primates aren't allowed to walk everywhere humans can just because they posses the ability to walk on two legs. In my view the biggest issue to raise is the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use). The most spectacular example of damage would be stackoverflow, thought stackoverflow content is not copyrighted. I think there is little doubt that LLM's drive attention from original sources. That might be deemed damaging, especially in the long run.
- 8note 3y ago
  Stack overflow content is certainly copyrighted, but the copyright is owned by the questioners and answerers, not stack overflow. There's no damage to the potential market or value of the works because they're given away for free by their owners.
  - lewhoo 3y ago
    There's no damage to the potential market or value of the works because they're given away for free by their owners. There may be, because technically copy/pasting SO code is governed by CC BY-SA 4.0 license which requires attribution and things aren't so obvious especially for commercial purpose.

pixl97 3y ago

But a business can (at least in the US)?

lewhoo 3y ago
But by business we mean an organization of people.
- Filligree 3y ago
  For the moment. How many years until we see the first person-less business? I’m sure there’ll be a human on the books, on paper.
  - telotortium 3y ago
    If a human is willing to be put on the line for any errors the LLM makes, I don't see why a person-less business wouldn't be allowed. The legal system won't tolerate a business where they can't pursue a human in the case of wrongdoing or liability. Something like a DAO won't be allowed in the near future, though.