site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 1, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

9
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

From 17 USC 101

“Copies” are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

Thus an LLM which can reproduce a copyrighted work is a copy of it, regardless of whether it is "generating" it or not.

According to your interpretation a pencil and a blank notebook would be a copy of a copyrighted work - it is entirely possible to use that pencil to write down a copy of the script to a recent Hollywood movie, which means that any blank piece of media is effectively a copy of any copyrighted work which can be expressed upon it.

No, the blank notebook is clearly not a copy of a copyrighted work, until you actually write down the script; the work is not fixed in it. There's no way to get the blank notebook to reproduce the copyrighted work without putting it on the notebook yourself. If you could write "The Fabelmans" at the top of the blank notebook and the rest of the script would appear, THEN you could validly argue the (apparently) blank notebook is a copy of a copyrighted work.

I don't think there's actually a distinction here. From my experience working and experimenting with ChatGPT, actually getting it to write down the original script of something like that without errors or hallucinations is much more involved than just writing the name at the top of the page. You can make ChatGPT recreate a script with a bunch of wrangling but I just don't see as much of a distinction between doing that and just writing out the script with a pen and paper. I don't see a way to get from trained ChatGPT to Actual, Accurate Copy of a Script that doesn't also incriminate blank paper.

I don't think there's actually a distinction here.

That's utterly ridiculous. There's an enormous difference between a device that will display a copy of a work after someone writes the work onto it and one which will do so if you just ask it. For the purpose of copyright law, errors and hallucinations don't matter if the result is close enough; a slightly corrupted copy is still a copy.