The analysis of German Law was problematic from the start as the wrong translation was cited. It was a hallucination taken from a third-party blog rather than the original thing. That was fixed, but shows the level of understanding…
REGULATION
-
German Legal Compliance Issues with LAION AI Training Data
By
–
Further, compliance under German Law is subject to a variety of details that haven't been taken into account — in particular in the case of LAION (who funded the work, was opt-out respected, were files deleted). Thus those conclusions about TDM in Europe should be thrown out.
-
Legal Framework for Text and Data Mining in AI
By
–
[🅲] Legal Problems The paper focuses on the U.S. jurisdiction; however it digs into German Law in order to find legal support for TDM since there is no such concept in U.S. Copyright Law.
-
Categorical Assertions in AI Documentation Risk Misinterpretation
By
–
The major objections I have with it is that the body itself contains many categorical assertions, which are defended by the fact the conclusion is reasonable. Unfortunately, this means people will quote the details to support their own opinions, thus causing a downward spiral.
-
Copyright paradox neural network weights inference time
By
–
The resulting paper, which was written since then, coincidentally advocates that there are no Copyrights on weights and that those are non-expressive representations, and yet those get reassembled magically into expressions that can be Copyrighted at inference time.
-
Legal Protection for AI Companies: Training Data and Output Defense
By
–
The most value for lawyers and their lawfirms is in defending AI companies at the training stage 1) inputs, and then secondarily, 3) outputs. If the rights for model weights 2) can't be secured, then fine that's an acceptable tradeoff because 1) is critical.
-
Legal battles over LLaMA weights and AI output ownership rights
By
–
VanL was hired by theshawwn to handle a DMCA claim by Meta about taking down the LLaMa weights, so they're trying to prove that weights are in the public domain. He was also hired by icreatelife to attempt to show that it's possible to own rights on the outputs of AI systems.
-
Public Inattention and Tech Obfuscation in Surveillance Systems
By
–
The overall point is a good one, and would be more effectively made by talkin about "inattention" (on the part of the populace) or "obfuscation" (on the part of those selling or using surveillance tech). >>
-
Machine Intelligence Political Deployment Society Blindness Concern
By
–
So it's really a shame that the article ends like this: "It is not AI but our sense of fatalism and our blindness to the way human societies are already deploying machine intelligence for political ends that should most worry us." There's no call to use "blindness" there. >>
-
Digital Panopticon: AI Systems Require Human Accountability
By
–
"We have stumbled into a digital panopticon almost without realising it. Yet to suggest we live in a world shaped by AI is to misplace the problem. There is no machine without a human, and nor is there likely to be." >>