[timje1]

It's literally just sticking the MPs name into an AI and asking for it to generate a mock ID for them. None of their real data is being used (e.g. their face, their DoB, the address) and the mock IDs wouldn't fool anyone for a second. I'd love if someone who understands the law would weigh in though

[NicuCalcea]

I don't think "It was actually ChatGPT that committed the crime, not me" would fly in a British court.

[marcus_holmes]

That's an interesting question, though.

We hold that LLMs are incapable of generating copyrighted images, so it's not just a tool - if it was just a tool then the author would be able to copyright the images. The courts recognise that an LLM is capable of generating things in its own right (which is why they're not copyrightable - copyrights only protect human works).

So it follows that an LLM must be able to create images itself, separate from the human prompter.

Whether that's enough to absolve the human of the crime, though - IANAL, and I suspect it would take the House of Lords to rule on it definitively.

[antonvs]

You're overthinking it. You're building on your own definition of what a tool is, but courts are likely to find that a person who used an AI with a specific type of prompt were using it as a tool and are responsible for the clearly stated intent behind their use.

Whether that's actually legal in this case I don't know, but I'm pretty sure courts won't conclude "welp, it was the AI, not the user" in a case like this.

[marcus_holmes]

Yeah, probably you're right. Though it is an interesting thing to overthink - we have decided that LLMs are not tools for copyright but are tools for accountability. At some point they'll get smart enough to be accountable, and what happens then?

[zmmmmm]

the law is pretty fickle that way. It's illegal to rob a bank no matter how badly you bungle it. Saying afterwards "but my gun was clearly made of plastic" probably won't get you completely off the hook if you actually threatened someone with it and asked for money (this site is literally titled Use Your Local MP's ID - it's expressing an intent).

[gus_massa]

Does the AI has access to newspapers? If John Doe is a MP, then he is probably the most famous Joe Doe in the last 5 years and the AI may grab his photo from a newspaper. I don't know about the national ID in UK, but here in Argentina the national ID number is public. A lot of public documents include "John Doe (DNI 23.456.789)", and the are sites where you can search it (the DB has problems with almost coalitions, so you may get a number 23.456.789 from one "John X. Doe" that is a 50yo in Buenos Aires and another "John Y. Doe" with number 59.876.653 that is a 3yo in Ushuaia, so in many cases it's easy to guess)

[OJFord]

> I don't know about the national ID in UK

There isn't one.

[dotancohen]

^coalitions^collisions

[aembleton]

It does use their face

[John7878781]

It's better to be safe than sorry. For your own best interest, I would shut down the site and delete this post.

[jrockway]

Comply in advance. It's the #1 way to make illegal laws work!

[brookst]

“Don’t upset the autocrats!”

[subscribed]

You jest, but a barrister was threatened with arrest while holding a blank piece of paper on the protest: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/barrister-threatened-...

[brookst]

I wasn’t jesting. I was (too) obliquely saying that when we all hasten to accede to the autocrats before they even ask, we become complicit in huge social evils.

I’m not suggesting that everyone most do self-immolation, but if it were me, I would draw the line at being afraid of being “caught” for an obvious prank using no PII. Screw that, come arrest me if things have really gotten that bad.

[subscribed]

Thank you, I didn't get it previously. I completely agree.

[arrowsmith]

You kid, but that's very good advice in most human societies at most points in history.