Not saying this would be the right way to go about preventing undesirable uses, but shouldn't building 'risky' technologies signal some risk to the ones developing them? Safe harbor clauses have long allowed the risks to be externalised onto the user, fostering non-responsibility on the developers behalf.
How can you know how people are going to use the stuff you make? This is how we end up in a world where a precondition to writing code is having lawyers on staff.
Just last weekend I developed a faster reed-solomon encoder. I'm looking forward to my jail time when somebody uses it to cheaply and reliably persist bootlegged Disney assets, just because I had the gall to optimize some GF256 math.
OP's reply to that appears to be drafted with heavy help from ChatGPT:
> I appreciate you citing the specific clauses. You are reading the 'Black Letter Law' correctly, but you are missing the Litigation Reality (how this actually plays out in court). The 'Primarily Designed' Trap: You argue this only targets a specific 'Arnold Bot.' blah blah blah.
> voice-conversion RVC model on HuggingFace, and someone else uses it to fake a celebrity, you (the dev) can be liable for statutory damages ($5k-$25k per violation). There is no Section 230 protection here. This effectively makes hosting open weights for audio models a legal suicide mission unless you are OpenAI or Google.
It should be called the anti-AGI bill, because trying to ban AI with certain capabilities is essentially banning embodied AI capable of learning/updating its weights live. The same logic applied to humans would essentially ban all humans, because any human can learn to draw and paint nudes of someone else.
You know kids, in the 80s, a lot of time before the First Crypto Wars, we had something called the Porn Wars on American Congress. I could leave out many depositions to Congress on Youtube, but I will leave you with some good music.
We do have tech that is "behind doors". Just look at military applications (nuclear, tank and jet design etc). Should "clonable voice and video" be behind close doors? Or should AGI be behind close doors? I think that the approach of the suggested legistation may not the right way to go about; but at a certain level of implementation capability I'm not sure how I would handle this situation.
If current tech appeared all of a sudden in 1999; I am sure as a society we would all accept this, but slow boiling frog theory I guess.
Likely unconstitutional as it violates the 1st amendment, which has done a very good job of protecting the right to author and distribute software over the years.
Clearly an unintended positive consequence, since no one who worked or voted on the Bill of Rights had a computer.
If the courts upheld the part in question, it would create a clear path to go after software authors for any crime committed by a user.
Cryptocurrencies would become impossible to develop in the US.
Holding authors responsible for the actions of their users basically means everyone has to stop distributing software under their real names.
There would be a serious chilling effect, as most open source projects shutdown or went underground.
The law in question was very specific and not as broad as you imply here. In fact more specific than the Redittor implies too since the law doesn't cover audio models in general only those purpose built to replicate a particular individual.
As the law is specifically targeting models made to duplicate an individual it isn't hard to provide sufficient evidence to clear the hurdles required of restrictions on free speech as examples of the negative effects are well documented and "speech model for an individual" isn't a broad category.
Also I would point out first amendment isn't used by the US to protect software delivery anywhere. Instead it is Congress explicitly encouraging it through the laws it passes.
25 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 46.4 ms ] thread(not my interpretation, it's what the post states - personally that is not what I think of when I read "Open Source")
The reason safe harbor clauses externalize risks onto the user is because the user gets the most use (heh) of the software.
No developer is going to accept unbounded risk based on user behavior for a limited reward, especially not if they're working for free.
OP replied and there's another in-depth reply to that below it
> I appreciate you citing the specific clauses. You are reading the 'Black Letter Law' correctly, but you are missing the Litigation Reality (how this actually plays out in court). The 'Primarily Designed' Trap: You argue this only targets a specific 'Arnold Bot.' blah blah blah.
Good.
(shill)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HMsveLMdds
Which is of course the European Version, not the evil American Version.
Chinese companies will happy to drive innovation further after Google and OpenAI giants goes on with this to kill competition in the US.
US capitalism eats itself alive with this.
Edit: Also does this mean OpenAI can bring back the Sky voice?
If current tech appeared all of a sudden in 1999; I am sure as a society we would all accept this, but slow boiling frog theory I guess.
Here is some background info on the act from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fakes_Act.
[0] https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/blob/master/readme.md
If the courts upheld the part in question, it would create a clear path to go after software authors for any crime committed by a user. Cryptocurrencies would become impossible to develop in the US. Holding authors responsible for the actions of their users basically means everyone has to stop distributing software under their real names. There would be a serious chilling effect, as most open source projects shutdown or went underground.
As the law is specifically targeting models made to duplicate an individual it isn't hard to provide sufficient evidence to clear the hurdles required of restrictions on free speech as examples of the negative effects are well documented and "speech model for an individual" isn't a broad category.
Also I would point out first amendment isn't used by the US to protect software delivery anywhere. Instead it is Congress explicitly encouraging it through the laws it passes.