29 ms·
I’m not claiming anything with regards to math model people. With regards to the law, you’re saying, because we assume that one day we should have a complete s
by 2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
I’m not claiming anything with regards to math model people.
With regards to the law, you’re saying, because we assume that one day we should have a complete simulation of humans, or at least a model, therefore, we should update our laws NOW, to prepare for this?
A story of premature optimisation if I ever heard one.
- canjobear 5y agoThe claim was that it's obvious that an AI can't patent something because the AI is an "equation." I'm claiming that if you want to establish a meaningful difference between humans an AIs, which would be useful legally, it can't be that one is an "equation" and the other is not, because "an equation" could equally well describe human behavior. You'd have to search for the distinction elsewhere.
- 2muchcoffeeman 5y agoIt is legally useful since it fits with our current understanding. When this changes, the laws will change. Your scenario is completely hypothetical at this point and also kinda extrapolated from things we know now.