3 ms·

> The thousands of years old saying: "The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state" has never been truer Can you tell me what is the correct number o

by sofixa 3y ago

> The thousands of years old saying: "The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state" has never been truer Can you tell me what is the correct number of laws? What's your threshold? And what happens when a new thing appears / enters the mainstream, do you have to remove an old law first before creating a new one? As a concrete example, LLMs and how they relate to copyright and image rights. Should we have to remove e.g. the rail packages to be able to legislate on them? Or screw it, anarchy? > But the EP is tiny compared to the EC and the EC is pulling the strings: the EP is supposed to bring some kind of democracy but there's none. You know that the European Parliament has to vote on EC proposals, right? And if they refuse them, they don't pass.

ta8645 3y ago
> As a concrete example, LLMs and how they relate to copyright and image rights. Why the heck is any new law needed at all for copyright? The only accusation is that LLMs did not respect current copyright laws, not that the current copyright law is insufficient. Specifically, there was a commonly used corpus of pirated copyright material (books3) that was used to train many LLMS. Its hosting was withdrawn when challenged by copyright holders. That's the system working as intended.
- sofixa 3y ago
  Because an algorithm isn't a human, so the usual "fair use" and inspiration arguments do not apply 1:1. The possibilities opened by e.g. film studios recording voice actors, trainign algorightms on them and then just reusing their voices, or deepfaking actors' faces, or Copilot giving verbatim copyrighted code are endless and quite different than what was currently possible. Does Microsoft violate copyright by training a model on copyrighted works? A human can read them and use them for inspiration, is that what a model does? Why the heck do people think laws should be warped to try to be applied to things the writers of the law couldn't even conceive of? Are planes regulated the same ways that cars and horses before were?
  - ta8645 3y ago
    > [examples of supposed problems] None of those have anything to do with LLMs which was the issue stated in your original post. > A human can read them and use them for inspiration, is that what a model does? Yes.

by sofixa 3y ago

ta8645 3y ago

> As a concrete example, LLMs and how they relate to copyright and image rights. Why the heck is any new law needed at all for copyright? The only accusation is that LLMs did not respect current copyright laws, not that the current copyright law is insufficient. Specifically, there was a commonly used corpus of pirated copyright material (books3) that was used to train many LLMS. Its hosting was withdrawn when challenged by copyright holders. That's the system working as intended.

sofixa 3y ago
Because an algorithm isn't a human, so the usual "fair use" and inspiration arguments do not apply 1:1. The possibilities opened by e.g. film studios recording voice actors, trainign algorightms on them and then just reusing their voices, or deepfaking actors' faces, or Copilot giving verbatim copyrighted code are endless and quite different than what was currently possible. Does Microsoft violate copyright by training a model on copyrighted works? A human can read them and use them for inspiration, is that what a model does? Why the heck do people think laws should be warped to try to be applied to things the writers of the law couldn't even conceive of? Are planes regulated the same ways that cars and horses before were?
- ta8645 3y ago
  > [examples of supposed problems] None of those have anything to do with LLMs which was the issue stated in your original post. > A human can read them and use them for inspiration, is that what a model does? Yes.