> the process (of human vs AI learning) just seems to be close enough It only seems that way because the people who understand it best also stand to profit fro

> the process (of human vs AI learning) just seems to be close enough It only seems that way because the people who understand it best also stand to profit from it, and are choosing to misrepresent it so that people who don't understand it falsely believe it is at all close. That so many people on here are pushing the false narrative that they are at all similar is sad, since this is ostensibly a forum for people with technical knowledge. Nothing about machine learning is similar to human learning, by any measure of evidence. If I am wrong, show me that evidence. "Data go in, something happen, metadata come out" is the closest you can approximate the 2, and too many supposedly tech-savvy people seem content to treat that as "close enough". > "Because it's a computer", to me, isn't. Not when the process and effects are already eerily similar to how humans work. Not when such argument would apply just as much in a hypothetical future where we develop sentient AIs. The argument is not "because it's a computer", it's "because it's not sentient", as I mentioned in my comment. Animals also have rights, because they are living. ML models are none of those (living, intelligent, or sentient), and the popular conflation of ML models and "AI" with "AGI"/ the kind of AI that may or may not ever end up existing, is just a convenient excuse by companies looking to maximize profit and minimize licensing costs, not to regulate the plain old python that we're actually talking about now.