5 ms·
Is it really so blurry? Social engineering is about fooling a human. If there is no human involved, why would it be considered social engineering? Just because
by capableweb 3y ago
Is it really so blurry? Social engineering is about fooling a human. If there is no human involved, why would it be considered social engineering? Just because you use a DSL (English) instead of programming language to interact with the service?
- callalex 3y agoEnglish is NOT a Domain-Specific Language.
- capableweb 3y agoIn the context we're discussing it right now, it basically is.
- callalex 3y agoWhich domain is it specific to?
- saghm 3y agoCommunication between humans, I guess?
- lucubratory 3y agoNot anymore.
- cwillu 3y agoA domain specific language that a few billion people happen to be familiar with, instead of the usual DSLs that nobody except the developer is familiar with. Totally the same thing.
- monitron 3y agoThe LLM is trained on human input and output and aligned to act like a human. So while there’s no individual human involved, you’re essentially trying to social engineer a composite of many humans…because if it would work on the humans it was trained on, it should work on the LLM.
- zer00eyz 3y ago>> to act like a human The courts are pretty clear, without the human hand there is no copyright. This goes for LLM's and monkeys trained to paint... large language MODEL. Not ai, not agi... it's a statistical infrence engine, that is non deterministic because it has a random number generator in front of it (temperature). Anthropomorphizing isn't going to make it human, or agi or AI or....
- simonw 3y agoWhat's not clear at all is what kind of "human hand" counts. What if I prompt it dozens of times, iteratively, to refine its output? What if I use Photoshop generative AI as part of my workflow? What about my sketch-influenced drawing of a Pelican in a fancy hat here? https://fedi.simonwillison.net/@simon/111489351875265358 https://fedi.simonwillison.net/@simon/111489351875265358
- zer00eyz 3y ago>> What's not clear at all is what kind of "human hand" counts. A literal monkey, who paints, has no copyright. The use of human hand is quite literal in the courts eyes it seems. The language of the law is its own thing. >> What if I prompt it dozens of times, iteratively, to refine its output? The portion of the work that would be yours would be the input. The product, unless you transform it with your own hand, is not copyrightable. >> What if I use Photoshop generative AI as part of my workflow? You get into the fun of "transformative" ... along the same lines as "fair use".
- ben_w 3y agoThat looks like the wrong rabbit hole for this thread? LLMs modelling humans well enough to be fooled like humans, doesn't require them to be people in law etc. (Also, appealing to what courts say is terrible, courts were equally clear in a similar way about Bertha Benz: she was legally her husband's property, and couldn't own any of her own).
- chefandy 3y agoNot saying this necessarily applies to you, but I reckon anyone that thinks midjourney is capable of creating art by generating custom stylized imagery should take pause before saying chat bots are incapable of being social.
- robertlagrant 3y ago> Just because you use a DSL (English) English is not a DSL.