what regulation are you advocating for here?

At the very least, authors who have been caught publishing proven fabrications should be barred by those journals from ever publishing in them again. Mind you, this is regardless of whether or not an LLM was involved.

	▲	JumpCrisscross a day ago \| parent [-]
		> authors who have been caught publishing proven fabrications should be barred by those journals from ever publishing in them again This is too harsh. Instead, their papers should be required to disclose the transgression for a period of time, and their institution should have to disclose it publicly as well as to the government, students and donors whenever they ask them for money.

▲

rectang a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I’m not advocating, I’m making a high-level observation: Industry forever pushes for nil regulation and blames bad actors for damaging use.

But we always have some regulation in the end. Even if certain firearms are legal to own, howitzers are not — although it still takes a “bad actor” to rain down death on City Hall.

The same dynamic is at play with LLMs: “Don’t regulate us, punish bad actors! If you still have a problem, punish them harder!” Well yes, we will punish bad actors, but we will also go through a negotiation of how heavily to constrain the use of your technology.

	▲	codywashere a day ago \| parent [-]
		so, what regulation do we need on LLMs? the person you originally responded to isn’t against regulation per their comment. I’m not against regulation. what’s the pitch for regulation of LLMs?