• eric
    link
    English
    41 year ago

    No, I’m not assuming that. It’s not about concluding AI’s are human. It’s about having concrete standards on which to design laws. Setting a lower standard for copyright violation by LLMs would be like setting a lower speed limit for a self-driving car, and I don’t think it makes any logical sense. To me that would be a disappointingly protectionist and luddite perspective to apply to this new technology.

    • lemmyvore
      link
      fedilink
      English
      01 year ago

      If LLM are software then they can’t commit copyright violation, the onus for breaking laws falls on the people who use them. And until someone proves otherwise in a court of law they are software.

      • eric
        link
        English
        31 year ago

        No one is saying we charge a piece of software with a crime. Corporations aren’t human, but they can absolutely be charged with copyright violations, so being human isn’t a requirement for this at all.

        Depending on the situation, you would either charge the user of the software (if they directed the software to violate copyright) and/or the company that makes the software (if they negligently release an LLM that has been proven to produce results that violate copyright).