3 ms·

The machine argument also rings hollow to me. This same argument could be made for a scanner + printer that does some transformation - changes colors a bit rand

by dtech 2y ago

The machine argument also rings hollow to me. This same argument could be made for a scanner + printer that does some transformation - changes colors a bit randomly or something - I'd be having a hard time convincing a court the resulting image is now copyright free. Obviously LLMs are much more advanced than this, but in the basis it's still a machine that takes its input data and applies specified transformations with randomness.

lifeformed 2y ago
The machine argument makes sense to me. It shifts the blame from the machine creators to the machine users. A copying machine creator is not responsible for misuse of the machine, nor is it illegal to simply Xerox a copyrighted work. Distributing the copy is where the law comes into play, and it targets the person distributing it, not the machine or the manufacturer. Obviously, it seems impossible for an LLM user to verify the legality of the output, so it seems like the only conclusion is not to use it, or to only release your works under copyleft. I guess an alternate interpretation is treating them like gun manufacturers. They aren't the ones pulling the trigger, but one could argue their business and marketing practices are done negligently enough for them to carry a portion of the responsibility. I guess then one must show that the LLM creators are sufficiently negligent in preventing misuse of their product at the same scale.
- dtech 2y ago
  The difference here is that Xerox isn't trying to handwave away copyright, while OpenAI et al. are explicitly defending the position in court that LLM output doesn't violate copyright, not that the LLM user is responsible for copyright violations. (I'd be hilarious for them to try to take this stance thought) I.i.r.c. they even "give you a license" to use LLM output, implying that they own the copyright. Too lazy to look this up so I might be wrong there though.

by dtech 2y ago

lifeformed 2y ago

The machine argument makes sense to me. It shifts the blame from the machine creators to the machine users. A copying machine creator is not responsible for misuse of the machine, nor is it illegal to simply Xerox a copyrighted work. Distributing the copy is where the law comes into play, and it targets the person distributing it, not the machine or the manufacturer. Obviously, it seems impossible for an LLM user to verify the legality of the output, so it seems like the only conclusion is not to use it, or to only release your works under copyleft. I guess an alternate interpretation is treating them like gun manufacturers. They aren't the ones pulling the trigger, but one could argue their business and marketing practices are done negligently enough for them to carry a portion of the responsibility. I guess then one must show that the LLM creators are sufficiently negligent in preventing misuse of their product at the same scale.

dtech 2y ago
The difference here is that Xerox isn't trying to handwave away copyright, while OpenAI et al. are explicitly defending the position in court that LLM output doesn't violate copyright, not that the LLM user is responsible for copyright violations. (I'd be hilarious for them to try to take this stance thought) I.i.r.c. they even "give you a license" to use LLM output, implying that they own the copyright. Too lazy to look this up so I might be wrong there though.