4 ms·

While this may seem like a big issue, it's really to be expected. Asking judges to rule on new technology applied to old laws is like asking a bus driver to des

While this may seem like a big issue, it's really to be expected. Asking judges to rule on new technology applied to old laws is like asking a bus driver to design an energy efficient bus motor. Judges are technicians, not scientists. They apply the law, they can't think creatively about new laws. For that, we have experts (political think-tanks). And I'm sure political think-tanks are kicking into overdrive as they realize that ramifications of this ruling. This will have an impact, but it's hard to determine what that will be. To some degree, it will disincentivize writing books. If this ruling only applies to SELLING books, then some people will make their books subscription-only, and will test this law against that (do AI companies need a perpetual subscription if they've trained an AI on a subscription-only book?). If AI companies are the primary consumers of books, and everyone just gets their information from AI, then direct-to-consumer books will cease to be a thing, and authors will sell their books directly to AI companies for $100,000 or $1,000,000.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> judges are technicians, not scientists. They apply the law, they can't think creatively about new laws You've never read an opinion that required creativity?
- phendrenad2 1y ago
  THAT's the part of my post you disagree with? lmao
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > THAT's the part of my post you disagree with? Yes. Judges in a common-law system don't just "apply the law," they literally make law. Treating judges as automatons fundamentally misunderstands their role, which makes any predictions based on that misunderstanding likely specious.
    - phendrenad2 1y ago
      I think we're getting hung up on a technicality here, so I'll concede that judges "make law" in whatever way you say they do. And I don't just base my predictions on that understanding, it's more of a pass-through thing. I base my predictions on observed reality, where there is a legislative branch that makes laws and a judicial branch that interprets them within narrow confines (supposedly, they basically have free reign to go wild and say up is down and down is up, but that rarely happens because they don't want to be laughed at in public)

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> judges are technicians, not scientists. They apply the law, they can't think creatively about new laws You've never read an opinion that required creativity?

phendrenad2 1y ago
THAT's the part of my post you disagree with? lmao
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > THAT's the part of my post you disagree with? Yes. Judges in a common-law system don't just "apply the law," they literally make law. Treating judges as automatons fundamentally misunderstands their role, which makes any predictions based on that misunderstanding likely specious.
  - phendrenad2 1y ago
    I think we're getting hung up on a technicality here, so I'll concede that judges "make law" in whatever way you say they do. And I don't just base my predictions on that understanding, it's more of a pass-through thing. I base my predictions on observed reality, where there is a legislative branch that makes laws and a judicial branch that interprets them within narrow confines (supposedly, they basically have free reign to go wild and say up is down and down is up, but that rarely happens because they don't want to be laughed at in public)