4 ms·
Have human artists done so?
by 4bpp 3y ago
Have human artists done so?
- gumballindie 3y agoBut a machine is not a human, so your analogy is moot.
- flir 3y agoBut a human is a machine.
- gumballindie 3y agoYeah if we overdose in lsd often the two are indeed equally capable in memorising data and mixing it together.
- flir 3y agoI've honestly got no idea what that means. Can you elaborate?
- staticman2 3y agoAre you trying to start a conversation that will revolve looking up dictionary definitions?
- flir 3y agoHmm. I don't think so. Whether humans are machines or not is really a matter of faith, not dictionary definitions, I would think. It was a pithy one-liner about categories in response to a pithy one-liner about categories. But I'd say the underlying question I'm trying to ask is philosophical: what property do humans have and machines lack that makes the first's learning from copyrighted works acceptable, and the second's unacceptable? (eastof suggested a property below).
- eastof 3y agoHumans are nothing like a machine. Machines can be taken apart piece by piece and put back together again.
- hombre_fatal 3y agoDoes that even apply to a LLM?
- nh23423fefe 3y agoHow would you take apart a ruler?
- gumballindie 3y agoSometimes debating the issue with ai fans is like arguing with children. They come up with all sorts of what they think are "clever comebacks" but really all they do is a reduction to absurdity. It only proves the fact that they are indeed children and fail to understand the topic alltogether. In such scenarios is best to leave them be.
- flir 3y agoProd the anti arguments enough and half of them are religious and the other half are pragmatic. I've got no objection to either, but they're not deep.
- uxp8u61q 3y agoA ruler isn't a "machine"...
- Lerc 3y agoYou can melt down a lathe and it is quite hard to reassemble it, and even if you did reform the entire thing people would doubt if it is the same lathe. Humans have had parts removed and reattached. With transplants components have been replaced entirely. There is a point at which you can destruct a machine from which it is impossible to reconstruct without getting into ship of Theseus issues. That point is different for different things.
- 4bpp 3y agoMost of the times this argument is fielded, including this one, it is formulated in the shape of an appeal to a general moral principle. I don't see what this principle is supposed to be: as my analogy shows, there is clearly no general moral principle against learning from copyrighted material and people's hard work without their explicit permission. The more narrow interpretation, in which the claimed principle is that a machine must not learn from copyrighted material (...), is also implausible: since we have no real history of machines learning from copyrighted material in any way that is recognizable as learning, it stands to reason that a principle addressing that scenario can not yet have become general. The appeal is thus to a completely novel principle that you have come up with for yourself; and it seems that rather than presenting arguments for why others should adopt this principle, you are trying to present it in such a way that someone not paying close attention would be fooled into believing that it is common sense and widely accepted. An analogy with the classic "you wouldn't download a car" comes to mind.