3 ms·

The 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

The 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Best 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 ago
    I'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 ago
    I 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 ago
  No 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?

logicchains 3y ago

I 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 ago
Best 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 ago
  I'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 ago
  I 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 ago
No 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?