4 ms·
Even if it does learn like a human treating it like one doesn’t follow at all. Your second paragraph is just rubbish, nowhere does the law apply to “all consci
by edgyquant 3y ago
Even if it does learn like a human treating it like one doesn’t follow at all. Your second paragraph is just rubbish, nowhere does the law apply to “all conscious self aware beings” and I’ve no idea where you got such a ludicrous idea. The law is, again, by and for humans with animals being a minor exception and even then it’s usually just affording them protections. The only laws that exist and are geared towards non-humans are regulations restricting corporations and entities.
- logicchains 3y agoNice reading comprehension. I never said that current law treats AI equally, I said the moral philosophy upon which our legal system is based applies equally to AI. I.e. logically the law _should_ treat AI like humans, since the philosophical foundations upon which it's based don't distinguish.
- edgyquant 3y agoThe rebuttal of the jackass is always to attack others reading comprehension. I don’t care about your anti-human philosophy anyway, humans are what matters not machines owned by billion dollar corporations looking to skirt copyright laws.
- logicchains 3y agoI can't believe someone could be so ignorant about the foundations of western civilisation. Try reading some Kant sometime, and find the part where what he says only applies to biological humans and not to self-aware, sentient machines. Try suggesting to anyone who's actually studied philosophy that Kant's philosophy is anti-human and see how far that gets you.
- edgyquant 3y agoBest to not assume what others have read and this entire Kant derail is a strawman argument. Simple statistical models that don’t even have persistent memory are not sentient beings and you’re the only one making such an argument, the argument I responded to was that these things learn like humans and nothing more. Kant would laugh you out of the room for implying ChatGPT was self aware and sentient.
- logicchains 3y agoI'm not saying ChatGPT is sentient, I'm saying that when it's put in a body and learns in a RL environment (with live update) it will be; it'll essentially be indistinguishable from a human. In which case it'll seem absurd for it to be illegal for it to read copyright material without permission, but that's what the law would be if NYT gets their way.
- logicchains 3y agoI apologise for being rude, I was just frustrated at how reluctant people are to consider how negatively a ruling in favour of NYT would affect "real" AI once it comes into being.
- apantel 3y agoNo machine yet created is self-aware. They’re just giant Rube Goldberg machines of simple components like transistors organized into logical units that just move electricity around and store it in little magnetic cubbies. Even the meaning in the data is arbitrary until it is made available to a human user, e.g. by being displayed on a screen.
- logicchains 3y ago>They’re just giant Rube Goldberg machines of simple components like transistors organized into logical units that just move electricity around and store it in little magnetic cubbies And a human brain is a Rube Goldberg machine of neurons that move electricity and other stuff around. Mathematically both are capable of approximating any function (a property of sufficiently large NNs and LLMs), so by what measure do we find humans self-aware?