James Scheibner

Also, I read your submission to the Productivity Commission and I completely agree with your assessment that this use of LLMs should be treated as high risk.

Interesting. That being said, the complaint that Angwin’s lawyers filed cites both section 50 of the New York Civil Rights Law as well as a case from the 1990s, so I imagine someone could possibly raise a similar cause of action in other states: prf-law.com/current-case...

Also, I’d love to use a scenario like this as a teaching tool. “This scummy tech firm has built something that’s horrendously unethical - how many obscure laws could you use to bring an action against them?”

The idea-expression dichotomy rears its head! To be fair though, Angwin’s class action has nothing to do with copyright but more a New York law that prevents a person’s likeness being used for commercial purposes without their consent. I suspect someone could also sue under the tort of passing off.

Of course, there’s some debate as to whether copyright can be retrofitted to deal with all the problems posed by AI (I don’t think it can be).

The advantage of copyright as a tool to regulate AI is that it’s backed by TRIPs and other IP treaties (hence @chup.blakereid.org’s observation that copyright is the only functional law of the Internet): bsky.app/profile/chup...

I don’t think this lawsuit has anything to do with IP, more to do with a state law in New York that means you can’t use someone’s identity for commercial purposes without consent. Another way the authors could sue would be via the tort of passing off, which doesn’t require trademark protection.

I know Denmark has also changed their copyright law so people have copyright over their voice and likeness. I see the merits of this given the notice and takedown framework that exists for copyright but I don’t know if it would encompass name and review style. @seamusbyrne.me probably knows more.

It potentially give rise to criminal liability (identity theft). The other pathway could be via the tort of passing off. This doesn’t need a registered trademark, but an academic would need to show goodwill in their name. I don’t think it’s a breach of privacy, as they are using public information.

I’m now curious as to what cause of action this might give rise to (privacy/copyright/identity theft).

I’m wondering mayhaps if it’s time to talk to my local fish and chips joint

Depends if your diesel generator has a carburettor or direct injection. I’ve heard and read a more modern diesel engine might burn out more quickly with veggie oil (source: Australian mindset skipping the data centres and going straight to the Mad Max protocol).

I mean, isn’t the conventional wisdom that if there is an attack, there’s probably not enough time to make it to your bunker?

I sort of agree. I’d like to see more open access journals, but funded by government grants and with professional editorial staff to do things like proofreading and fact checking. It seems perverse to pay journals for OA when most of that research was publicly funded to begin with.

Isn’t this just downstream of the fact that you can submit to multiple US law reviews simultaneously (which as a non-USian law lecturer is just bonkers)?

Seems inevitable given it’s possible to submit to multiple law reviews at once (which as a non-USian seems utterly bonkers).

Reminds me a bit of the OceanGate team who were quite happy to ignore submersible regulations with their deep sea jalopy but then called up the Coast Guard when said deep sea jalopy imploded.

The appeal of Sandilands is completely mystifying to my Tasmanian mind. Shock jocks never made it over from the mainland.

Classic FM Breakfast undefeated in Australia’s breakfast FM radio wars.

Podcaster occupied government.

I sympathise with artists, particularly given image generation models have replaced a lot of work done by visual artists and copyright is one of the few regulatory levers to control AI. Copyright however does not protect labour rights, and twisting it to try and do so will create perverse outcomes.

Can confirm it’s wet. The local council are offering free sandbags.

Melbourne supporters 🤝 UK politics nerds - Badloss jokes

True, but you have to wonder what they thought would happen if they offered their services to the Department of War under this administration. The ethics around dual use technologies have been extensively debated in literature.

I was just covering this in my Health Law topic last week. Interestingly the Victorian Wrongs Act does not extend exemption of civil liability to an admission of fault, which sits awkwardly alongside Victoria’s statutory duty of candour requirements imposed on health service providers.

I live in Adelaide’s northern suburbs and have already been leafleted by One Nation. My seat is safe Labor but they’re already pretty active.

My understanding is that they would be on a good footing there given Bernstein.

Fixing drivers in Linux isn’t that bad!

D’Hondt leads to some odd electoral results and coalitions.

Looks pretty bad, not only from an AI but also a systems security perspective. I do wonder though whether the usage logs (i.e. where the agent logs in from and for how long) would give it away. Also wonder whether universities could drop the hammer on students who use this for IT policy breach.