IANAL, but it might be relevant to others trying to answer what jurisdiction you are in. (US, EU, CN, JP, elsewhere?)
Also, when you bought from PianoDisc, did you agree to abide by a certain jurisdiction's laws in your use of PianoDisc? And did you explicitly agree to not share any sort of decoder/encoder in any ToS?
> (k) to interfere with or circumvent the security features of the Service
IANAL. But I think reverse engineering their data structure, identifying a security measure - even one as weak as obfuscation, and publishing code to circumvent it is clearly against your license.
I am also NAL, but out of curiosity does OPs post detailing the obfuscation transgress any laws?
If the security measures exist in plain sight, as they apparently do, are they allowed to be discussed?
I reckon that if OP posts the encoder/decoder software that'd be against some sort of license clause. However in the age of AI who cares about the software at this point? Anyone can prompt their own private version into existence.
Just thinking out loud here. I have not considered AIs use as personal "cheat engines".
Well, it already ranks pretty highly in Google search results, so it’s unlikely that Elon’s lawyers haven’t heard of the website.
It has some page where it almost goes out of its way to say that it doesn’t bypass security measures like Nitter and XCancel supposedly did. So Elon might not have even a fig leaf of a legal argument to take it down like he did with the other websites.
It’s also possible that Twitterviewer is just flat out disobeying cease and desist letters from Musk, which nitter and xcancel weren’t willing to risk.
In any case, I find it unlikely that Musk hasn’t heard of Twitterviewer.
Author in comments:
Fair point. I suppose I decided to use the term tautology for the same reason I embrace "[liberalism=]neoliberalism", to defend a term that is often unfairly maligned.
Except for the cases where no writing is better than LLM writing. The author's take seems ok to me, but what I struggle with most in AI writing is that it removes or abstracts away the intent of the original author. Not in every sentence and in every thought. But when a human says something, I can reason about why they said it the way they did. There are threads worth tugging on. 2 easy-to-understand examples: 1. when an ESL writer communicates something in awkward English, it's a fascinating glimpse into how they normally communicate about concepts. The meaning is usually not too difficult to infer and I can see how their language or culture affects how they see mine. It's very fun. 2. if an expert explains something and I get lost, that's usually a hint that my mental model could change to see the problem/solution more like they do.
But when a person expert or no uses an llm, information is being lost. If I misunderstand an llm's sentence, it is possible that "it knows what it's talking about", but with how frequently they don't know what they're talking about, I usually don't try and move on. It's not worth it.
In America, at least, though perhaps this applies more broadly, so many trends over the past decades all converge towards the lowering of the baseline levels of trust you should give towards a stranger (whether valid or not!). And llms have been a net-negative so far. We have exchanged some amount of trust for intelligence. And it didn't have to be an exchange.
I care less about llm disclosure and more about this: If you use an LLM for writing, please think sincerely about whether the output accurately represents what you would say and how you would say it to another person. Please avoid serving others nothingburgers and wordsalads. This has always been possible and it's easy to do it without realizing it with LLMs. The output can survive a scan, but dissolves upon further inspection.
tldr; make sure that what you publish is trustworthy.
reply