4 ms·

Artificial persons aren't people. AI isn't intelligence. It's just a to make a parallel as some attributes are similar or identical, but not all, so they don'

by hirako2000 3y ago

Artificial persons aren't people. AI isn't intelligence. It's just a to make a parallel as some attributes are similar or identical, but not all, so they don't quality as the real. Mere similarities only. An artificial dog represented by a picture of a dog (visually looks quite like a dog), does not move, no life, no smell, no neurons, blood, muscles and bones. Hence not a dog.

ginko 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
YouAreTheChief 3y ago
You are right of course, I am not claiming they are actual people. The "corporations are people too" slogan is ironic. But they are people in a sense that they may own property, be sued, etc. What interests me is why they are called an "artificial person" in the first place. Why are they not just called a "business" by law or a similar term. Calling something a person, even if it's artificial carries with itself great implications.
- hirako2000 3y ago
  They are (somewhat) people in regards of the law. Business entities are granted certain rights that are also granted to (real) individuals. Labelling businesses as (artificial) persons is probably to put the emphasis that (with regards to the law) they will be treated the same as persons. With regards to certain rights given they granted them the same. Imagine when the concept was introduced, some may have been against it but for sure many did not even comprehend what it meant. "How can a business be the same as a person" asked the layman, "not the same as, an artificial person" said the legislator. Only speculating, and trying to find reasons for not seeing more than some weirdness that put into historical perspective may not be so suspicious. As an example of things not changing, we are now calling those prompts spitting back highly probable statistical predictions of correctness in the output "artificial intelligence". There isn't any intelligence in LLMs. Just adoption of how neurons are connected in our brain. Nodes aren't neurons in those algorthms, they are artificial neurons, connections between nodes are nothing like the actual links between neurons. Not even close. They are like what a rough map is to a territory, to make a parallel with what's on the wikipedia page the cousin post mentions. Artificial neural network mimicing binary graphs would be a more appropriate naming. People would not have a clue what that means. Here, layman, it's artificial intelligence, see, it writes, talks and even answer questions better than most university teachers.

ginko 3y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

YouAreTheChief 3y ago

You are right of course, I am not claiming they are actual people. The "corporations are people too" slogan is ironic. But they are people in a sense that they may own property, be sued, etc. What interests me is why they are called an "artificial person" in the first place. Why are they not just called a "business" by law or a similar term. Calling something a person, even if it's artificial carries with itself great implications.

hirako2000 3y ago
They are (somewhat) people in regards of the law. Business entities are granted certain rights that are also granted to (real) individuals. Labelling businesses as (artificial) persons is probably to put the emphasis that (with regards to the law) they will be treated the same as persons. With regards to certain rights given they granted them the same. Imagine when the concept was introduced, some may have been against it but for sure many did not even comprehend what it meant. "How can a business be the same as a person" asked the layman, "not the same as, an artificial person" said the legislator. Only speculating, and trying to find reasons for not seeing more than some weirdness that put into historical perspective may not be so suspicious. As an example of things not changing, we are now calling those prompts spitting back highly probable statistical predictions of correctness in the output "artificial intelligence". There isn't any intelligence in LLMs. Just adoption of how neurons are connected in our brain. Nodes aren't neurons in those algorthms, they are artificial neurons, connections between nodes are nothing like the actual links between neurons. Not even close. They are like what a rough map is to a territory, to make a parallel with what's on the wikipedia page the cousin post mentions. Artificial neural network mimicing binary graphs would be a more appropriate naming. People would not have a clue what that means. Here, layman, it's artificial intelligence, see, it writes, talks and even answer questions better than most university teachers.