So many takes on this are so foolish in so basic a way. They recapitulate in a naive way fundamentally broken world-views derived from the anglo-american analyt

So many takes on this are so foolish in so basic a way. They recapitulate in a naive way fundamentally broken world-views derived from the anglo-american analytic philosophical reductionism with respect to language, sematntics, and representation. TL;DR: the models behind these things objects are more like human minds than databases. They perform integration and reproduction as do our minds (within very narrow constraints of course). These attempts to reason about ethics around them predicated on pearl-clutching about IP and originality miss the point and significant and nature of such models and the systems around them in a forest-trees way. Attempting to describe what they do and what relationship it bears to prior work is only sensible when you start with the premise that they are more like human minds, than "tools for replication" in any of the senses we have had to reason about as a society before. A worse problem is certain: our legal system is certain to lag even further behind in both comprehension and ability to respond. Oh well!