2 ms·

Sorry, I don't understand your point. Can you state what actual point you're trying to make, rather than just picking each of my sentences and saying you're no

by 1dom 16d ago

Sorry, I don't understand your point. Can you state what actual point you're trying to make, rather than just picking each of my sentences and saying you're not so sure or you disagree? I could do the same to you, but it's just a waste of time if we're not trying to actually come to a conclusion together. My hypothesis is that I suspect there's a MAD type situation where technically - by the letter of the law - all the big tech companies bragging about x% of their code being LLM generated are basically admitting to breaching copyright laws. But if one well funded tech company successfully prosecutes that and sets a precedence, then all big tech is going to have to wind back all the LLM code its put in production in the past few years to prevent litigation, which is probably unworkable, hence MAD. I was looking to disprove my own hypothesis by asking for court cases prosecuting this. I'm not interested in arguing semantics with you. (FWIW, I was repeatedly taught by various legal scholars at various levels of education that a criminal is someone who has been found by a court to be guilty of committing an act that violates criminal law. Up until that point, they're usually just a suspect or similar. Not debating, just highlighting that your definition of criminal doesn't negate or disprove any point I'm making. Same for your definition of illegal.)

simoncion 15d ago
> Sorry, I don't understand your point. If you're looking for a single point, that's going cause you trouble. Maybe go back and read what I wrote more carefully? I believe that I took care to make sure that my rebuttals to your claims both dovetailed in nicely with the part of the claim they were rebutting and -as a backup- contained the context needed to understand exactly what I was rebutting. > I was looking to disprove my own hypothesis by asking for court cases prosecuting this. _Prosecuting_? If you know enough to ask for that, then you have the knowledge needed to discover that those court cases don't really exist yet. The courts move slowly, especially when wealthy and/or powerful entities are supremely disinterested in attracting their attention. > I'm not interested in arguing semantics with you. For anything that's not incredibly clear-cut, that's like the entirety of the practice of law... at least in the US. At its heart, it's an adversarial storytelling exercise that has hundreds to thousands of years of tradition to pull from. I know this in part because I strongly considered becoming a lawyer before I became a programmer. > ...a criminal is someone who has been found by a court to be guilty... That's very good practice to engage in when talking about ordinary people. When talking about very powerful people or entities (such as large, influential companies), it's not so great. Very powerful entities tend to be permitted to get away with antisocial conduct that the rest of us get metaphorically nailed to the wall for. "Rules for thee but not for me" is trite, but very, very frequently how things end up working. EDIT: There's also the example that I had in mind yesterday of US-based marijuana growers, commercial purchasers, individual purchasers, and consumers. All of these people are knowingly illegally producing, trafficking, and/or consuming a Schedule I substance. Folks often do this in the open, making no secret of it. The DoJ and DEA might choose not to haul these people into court, but most -if not all- of them are still very plainly criminals... just not convicted ones. > My hypothesis is that I suspect there's a MAD type situation... No. In regards to this whole LLM craze, there's no MAD-type situation between well-funded tech companies. There are a handful of players who have absolutely no interest in stopping the money-making party. No one involved in the money-making party that resulted in the 2008 crash who could make a credible report to the relevant authorities had any interest in calling those authorities in to stop it... why on earth would they when there's so much money being made? And since approximately none of the folks responsible for that huge pile of fraud saw any meaningful punishment, why wouldn't businesses with the means to engage in activity that's no less illegal but is very profitable for a large number of powerful people be discouraged from doing it again?
- 1dom 12d ago
  If you can't state your point clearly, I'm not going to spend time trying to figure it out for you, sorry.

by 1dom 16d ago

simoncion 15d ago

> Sorry, I don't understand your point. If you're looking for a single point, that's going cause you trouble. Maybe go back and read what I wrote more carefully? I believe that I took care to make sure that my rebuttals to your claims both dovetailed in nicely with the part of the claim they were rebutting and -as a backup- contained the context needed to understand exactly what I was rebutting. > I was looking to disprove my own hypothesis by asking for court cases prosecuting this. _Prosecuting_? If you know enough to ask for that, then you have the knowledge needed to discover that those court cases don't really exist yet. The courts move slowly, especially when wealthy and/or powerful entities are supremely disinterested in attracting their attention. > I'm not interested in arguing semantics with you. For anything that's not incredibly clear-cut, that's like the entirety of the practice of law... at least in the US. At its heart, it's an adversarial storytelling exercise that has hundreds to thousands of years of tradition to pull from. I know this in part because I strongly considered becoming a lawyer before I became a programmer. > ...a criminal is someone who has been found by a court to be guilty... That's very good practice to engage in when talking about ordinary people. When talking about very powerful people or entities (such as large, influential companies), it's not so great. Very powerful entities tend to be permitted to get away with antisocial conduct that the rest of us get metaphorically nailed to the wall for. "Rules for thee but not for me" is trite, but very, very frequently how things end up working. EDIT: There's also the example that I had in mind yesterday of US-based marijuana growers, commercial purchasers, individual purchasers, and consumers. All of these people are knowingly illegally producing, trafficking, and/or consuming a Schedule I substance. Folks often do this in the open, making no secret of it. The DoJ and DEA might choose not to haul these people into court, but most -if not all- of them are still very plainly criminals... just not convicted ones. > My hypothesis is that I suspect there's a MAD type situation... No. In regards to this whole LLM craze, there's no MAD-type situation between well-funded tech companies. There are a handful of players who have absolutely no interest in stopping the money-making party. No one involved in the money-making party that resulted in the 2008 crash who could make a credible report to the relevant authorities had any interest in calling those authorities in to stop it... why on earth would they when there's so much money being made? And since approximately none of the folks responsible for that huge pile of fraud saw any meaningful punishment, why wouldn't businesses with the means to engage in activity that's no less illegal but is very profitable for a large number of powerful people be discouraged from doing it again?

1dom 12d ago
If you can't state your point clearly, I'm not going to spend time trying to figure it out for you, sorry.