“Garbage books” are mass-printed, but aren’t mass-written in a mass production sense. Mass production is about producing fairly exact copies of something that was designed once. The design part has always remained more artisanal than industrial. It’s only the production based on the design (or manuscript) that is industrial.
The difference with software is that software is design all the way down. It only needs to be written once, similar to how a mass-produced item needs only be designed once. The copying that corresponds to mass production is the deployment and execution of the software, not the writing of it.
Free speech absolutely does allow assigning blame, whether correctly or incorrectly. It also allows suggesting criminal action at some point in the future, just not imminently.
It would actually be nice to have a book-LLM. That is, an LLM that embodies a single (human-written) book, like an interactive book. With a regular book, you can get stuck when the author didn’t think of some possible stumbling block, or thinks along slightly differently lines than the reader. An LLM could fill in the gaps, and elaborate on details when needed.
Of course, nowadays you can ask an LLM separately. But that isn’t the same as if it were an integrated feature, focused on (and limited to) the specific book.
Genuinely have no idea what the novelty of this is for versus just uploading a PDF to ChatGPT. In terms of UX it is incredibly limited for a book evolution work.
What I’m imagining is an LLM that is strongly tied to the book, in the sense of being RLHF’d for the book (or something along those lines), like an author able to cater to any reader interested in the book, but also confined to what the book is about. An LLM embodiment and generalization of the book. Not an LLM you can talk about anything where you just happen to talk about some random book now. The LLM should be clearly specific to the book. LLMs for different books would feel as distinct from each other as the books do, and you couldn’t prompt-engineer the LLM to go out of the context the book.
The problems with cloning the exact look is fear of copyright/IP issues with Microsoft. You can be pretty sure they won’t look away if such a desktop becomes really popular. Remember how Apple sued Samsung over using rounded corners on icons?
I remember Lindows, but I think their problem had more to do with their branding and marketing and the fact that it was sold commercially than it did with its UI resembling Windows, and all of those mistakes are trivial to avoid.
That said, even if the UI looking the same is an issue, it’s not that difficult to come up with a look and feel that is legally distinct but spiritually aligned and functionally identical… random amateurs posting msstyle themes for XP/Vista/7 on DeviantArt did that numerous times.
The difference with software is that software is design all the way down. It only needs to be written once, similar to how a mass-produced item needs only be designed once. The copying that corresponds to mass production is the deployment and execution of the software, not the writing of it.
reply