7 ms·
Well, you cant raise a human without 'copyrighted' (or at least already existing) material in the form of parental norms, ethical codes, schoolbooks, pre existi
by dsq 3y ago
Well, you cant raise a human without 'copyrighted' (or at least already existing) material in the form of parental norms, ethical codes, schoolbooks, pre existing humans like parents, grandparents, etc.
We dont spring like Athena from the forehead of Zeus.
Heinlein, in his book "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" made the interesting point that an AI needs love in order to become a full entity. Love needs to come from from somewhere.
- belter 3y agoIn other words...Your rights to the content you created, are disturbing the road to my IPO?
- leereeves 3y agoIf we judge ChatGPT by the same standards we judge humans, it would still be in a lot of trouble for copyright violations and plagarism. (Not that I think we should do so - ChatGPT is not AGI.)
- edgyquant 3y agoPeople really need to stop trying to make this argument. Even if you were right about this, ChatGPT IS NOT A HUMAN! It literally can’t be any clearer than that, society and its laws exist by and for humans and human rights and informational norms do not apply to mechanical statistical models. And no, I don’t care if you believe humans are “totally just a similar type of model.”
- logicchains 3y agoPeople are not saying ChatGPT is a human, they're saying it learns like a human so its learning should be legally treated like a human learning. Laws are based on philosophy, and none of the philosophies upon which western notions of human rights are based rely on the fact that it's a biological human as justification, rather they rely on arguments that apply equally to any conscious self-aware being. Saying that only humans should ever have rights because they're biological makes as much logical sense as only Caucasians should ever have rights because their skin is white.
- RandomLensman 3y agoWe generally don't treat machines as human, why make an exception here? Animals are also not treated as humans, so the bar for a machine to clear is very very high to get that treatment, which then would include criminal matters, too, I suppose.
- logicchains 3y agoMost machines don't learn like humans; these machines do. It'll be even more apparent when we put LLMs in mechanical bodies and allow them to update weights in real time, which is only a few years away given there aren't any real technological impediments. It's stupid to suggest that it should be illegal for an LLM in a body to watch a copyrighted movie because it could memorise and quote it verbatim, when that's what humans do.
- RandomLensman 3y agoSo what if that were true - no reason to treat them as human because they are not human (or even close to human) presently.
- logicchains 3y agoWhat reason is there to treat them differently just because one's made of silicon and the other of carbon? Sounds like just plain ol' racism.
- RandomLensman 3y agoDo we treat a car as human for the purposes of locomotion? Should we treat certain fluorocarbons as human because they can work a bit like blood? There is nothing racist in treating a machine like a machine. Just because a machine replicates or approximates something a human does, doesn't mean it is a human or should be treated as one.
- 3y ago
- EMIRELADERO 3y agoSure, but I don't see how that's a good response to the argument. It's not about "the machine's right to do something", but "my right to make the machine do something". That's what's at play, and what can be allowed or disallowed.
- RandomLensman 3y agoFair point. Your right to do something can clearly differ from your right to make a machine do something. A simple example would be you being allowed to walk down footpath, but letting your car traverse that path isn't allowed. If we are talking hypothetical new rules, not immediately obvious to me what is optimal here, including differentiation of various use cases.
- close04 3y agoMore importantly the machine is usually allowed to do less than the human. Otherwise it would become an easier avenue for abuse. Whenever you can't do something just build a machine to do it, and the machine's capabilities are ever expanding. Maybe the starting point for legislating "machines" should be to take human capability as a baseline, make some humans eventually accountable, and go from there. If your machine is learning truly like a human (takes decades to learn then output results, forgets things, only one in a thousand can output something useful at the end of the learning process, etc.) and the "owners" take full accountability for what it does then why not like a human? But this reminds me of an old joke. A man comes into an inn and asks how much for a thimble of water. The inn keeper says a thimble is free. So he proceeds to ask for 1000 thimbles.
- mjbeswick 3y agoThat's your opinion, but right now he law doesn't cover training AI models. Do you think that content created people is truly original?
- edgyquant 3y agoWhy does this matter at all? We’re talking about statistical models not humans
- chrisjj 3y agoSure it does. It binds the human trainers.
- anotherhue 3y agoIf the models had a total lifetime output similar to a human we wouldn't be worrying about this. Instead they're rather fast, and that makes them something different.
- skepticATX 3y agoThe materials that you are referencing were all created for the benefit of humans. The creators want humans to learn from them.