6 ms·
That's a bit of a false dilemma. To address copyright issues, we needn't prove that machine learning models learn exactly like humans or not. The more relevant
by Kim_Bruning 3y ago
That's a bit of a false dilemma. To address copyright issues, we needn't prove that machine learning models learn exactly like humans or not. The more relevant point is that neither human learning nor machine learning has the intent to store or replicate copyrighted material; both aim to generalize from data to produce new content. It is in this way that they are similar.
- freejazz 3y agoIt's the argument that is being made. Intent isn't a requisite for copyright infringement. Your re-characterization of the argument is so general that it's useless.
- Kim_Bruning 3y agoHeh, we seem to be talking past each other. I wonder if this might be because Slavboj might be a monist/physicalist, and you might be a dualist[2]? If that's the case we'd all argue until we're blue in the face, if we don't at least recognize this underlying difference. For the record, since I've studied biology, I'm probably closest to some form of mechanism[3] (due to the rejection of vis vitalis [4] in early 20th c. ) Of course, you could also just be a very skeptical monist mindful of the kluger hans effect[5] and working from there. Let me know which (if any), maybe we can still find middle ground! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_(philosophy) [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans