2026-10-19 14:56 UTC
To be clear, re several replies:
(1) The post above is not about •my• opinion on the matter. It’s about which legal arguments make sense.
(2) It’s possible for it to be both: it’s a coherent argument to say that some things an LLM does are in fact literal enough reproduction to be copyright violation •and• to say that humans are responsible for the tool. (That is in fact my own position.) The point of the previous post is that while saying “both!” is logically tenable, saying “neither!” is not.
Replies (2)
-
@990000@mstdn.social 2026-10-19 15:17
@inthehands@hachyderm.io yeah a key thing about LLMs is the erratic behavior, so you can’t really say it always does x. It may occasionally create something new by accident, but mostly it just reconstitutes data in an arbitrary and/or verbatim way. It will sometimes regurgitate facts, but it will also sometimes describe things completely fallaciously. And it also never transforms exclusively with the specific intent to transform and create something new. It’s a bundle of contradictions.
-
@ptesarik@mastodonczech.cz 2026-10-20 12:24
@inthehands@hachyderm.io Little have you learned to double-think. Go read 1984 again. WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH