3 ms·
You're correct, I ignored the "sentient" part of the comment. If we were to reduce the question exclusively to the sentience part, my comment holds no ground.
by rjzzleep 3y ago
You're correct, I ignored the "sentient" part of the comment. If we were to reduce the question exclusively to the sentience part, my comment holds no ground.
- anileated 3y agoFrom what I see on HN, many people (mostly, I guess, in AI industry) justify Microsoft/ClosedAI ignoring copyright when training LLMs because we don’t prevent humans from learning on copyrighted material and using it to create artworks. Therefore, by their logic, LLMs are “like human” enough that they should have this basic right as well. An understanding that “thinking” or “training” in case of an LLM is not at all like thinking in case of a human would go a long way to realizing this take doesn’t hold water.