3 ms·

> Humans are more valuable than AI models, and should retain many inherent rights that AI models should not. This argument feels disingenuous. There aren't peo

> Humans are more valuable than AI models, and should retain many inherent rights that AI models should not. This argument feels disingenuous. There aren't people out there trying to get AI votership or property rights. Even the most ardent AI supports will agree that AIs shouldn't automatically enjoy the inherent rights we enjoy as human beings. This is a pure strawman. The issue at hand is copyright laws, and IMO the conversation is a necessary one. With or without AI, a significant amount of people have been wondering whether or not the current set of legislation is effective in enforcing the spirit of the copyright law, which is to incentivize and protect original ideas. The fact that we have AI's that can learn and iterate at blazing speeds was just a catalyst that exposed some large holes in our legal system - the holes were always there. The question now is where do we draw the line for AI? Even if everyone in the world agrees that "Humans [...] should retain many inherent rights that AI models should not", we still need to decide where that line should be drawn.

ang_cire 3y ago
This is honestly the best response so far, and I agree that my statement was probably too ambiguous. I am not claiming that anyone says AI should have all the rights of humans, I'm saying that people are arguing that: -> the Right existing for humans (to organically learn by ingesting works of others) -implies that- -> learning must also then be allowed for non-human learning (i.e. AI models) as a Right That argument does not make sense to me unless you start from the assumption that "learning" is what grants the Right (i.e. that everything has a right to learn, computers included), rather than being human, which is what I mean by "devaluing" people. I agree the court case is necessary, but only as a vehicle to enshrine what should be an obvious truth: Humans learn from experience whether they endeavor to or not, so they literally cannot ingest media (e.g. for the purposes of entertainment that the creators intend, per OpenAI's brief) without assimilating it into their mind. That is not true for computers. AI models do not consume content for the purposes set out by the creators. They consume them for business purposes, and to allow them to do so, without license or permission, completely destroys copyright protection against corporations. We do not need a new law; the current law already doesn't allow companies to use copyrighted works without permission. We just need the existing law enforced against AI model companies.

ang_cire 3y ago

This is honestly the best response so far, and I agree that my statement was probably too ambiguous. I am not claiming that anyone says AI should have all the rights of humans, I'm saying that people are arguing that: -> the Right existing for humans (to organically learn by ingesting works of others) -implies that- -> learning must also then be allowed for non-human learning (i.e. AI models) as a Right That argument does not make sense to me unless you start from the assumption that "learning" is what grants the Right (i.e. that everything has a right to learn, computers included), rather than being human, which is what I mean by "devaluing" people. I agree the court case is necessary, but only as a vehicle to enshrine what should be an obvious truth: Humans learn from experience whether they endeavor to or not, so they literally cannot ingest media (e.g. for the purposes of entertainment that the creators intend, per OpenAI's brief) without assimilating it into their mind. That is not true for computers. AI models do not consume content for the purposes set out by the creators. They consume them for business purposes, and to allow them to do so, without license or permission, completely destroys copyright protection against corporations. We do not need a new law; the current law already doesn't allow companies to use copyrighted works without permission. We just need the existing law enforced against AI model companies.