3 ms·
> for example, if a human can read one book to learn something, then it’s ok to scan millions of books into a computer system because it’s just another kind of
by squigz 2y ago
> for example, if a human can read one book to learn something, then it’s ok to scan millions of books into a computer system because it’s just another kind of learning.
Since this comes up all the time, I ask: What exactly is the number of books a human can ingest before it becomes illegal?
- Seattle3503 2y agoFor a human? Whatever they can consume within their natural life.
- gitgud 2y agoDoes natural life still count if a person is using an artificial heart? What about if they have augmentation that allows them to read and interpret books really fast? It’s not an easy question to answer…
- kombookcha 2y ago"But what if a person was so thoroughly replaced with robot parts to be just like a computer" is just "if my grandma had wheels, she would be a truck, therefore it's not so easy to say that cars aren't allowed to drive inside the old folks home". People and software are different things, and it makes total sense that there should be different rules for what they can and cannot do.
- Dylan16807 2y agoYour first question doesn't change the answer, and your second question depends on a premise that isn't real. Natural life is plenty simple in this context.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- dorkwood 2y agoThis is a bit like someone saying they don't want cars traveling down the sidewalk because they're too big and heavy, and then having someone ask how big and heavy a person needs to get before it becomes illegal for them to travel down the sidewalk. It misses the point, which is that cars aren't people. Arguments like "well a car uses friction to travel along the ground and fuel to create kinetic energy, just like humans do", aren't convincing to me. An algorithm is not a human, and we should stop pretending the same rules apply to each.
- pests 2y agoThank you, love this response.
- Dylan16807 2y agoIt's easy to explain the difference between a person and a car in a way that's both specific and relevant to the rules. If we're at an analogy to "cars aren't people", then it sounds like it doesn't matter how many books the AI reads, even one book would cause problems. But if that's the case, why make the argument about how many books it reads? Are you sure you're arguing the same thing as the ancestor post? Or do you merely agree with their conclusion but you're making an entirely different argument?
- TeMPOraL 2y agoThen again, bicycles are neither people nor cars, and yet they make claim to both sidewalk and the road, even though they clearly are neither, and are a danger and a nuisance on both.
- mike_hearn 2y agoIs that a good example? People have been arguing in court about that exact thing for years, first due to Segway and then due to e-scooters and bikes. There's plenty of people who make arguments of the form "it's not a car or a bike so I'm allowed on the sidewalk", or make arguments about limited top speeds etc.
- dorkwood 2y ago
- numpad0 2y agoDepends on similarities between existing data and generative outputs, so minimum is zero. Humans are caught plagiarizing all the time.
- TeMPOraL 2y agoPlagiarism is not illegal, it's merely frowned upon, and only in specific fields. Everywhere else, it's called learning from masters and/or practicing your art.
- numpad0 2y agowtf.
- CaptainFever 2y agoIt's true.
- throwaway211 2y agoLearning is just a conditioned response to inputs. You were conditioned to give that response. If I ask an AI about the book Walden Two, for example, it can reproduce and/or remix that. Knowing is copying. [Why Walden Two? BF Skinner. And an excellent book about how the book was lived: https://www.amazon.com/Living-Walden-Two-Behaviorist-Experimental-ebook/dp/B01LXKT57K/ https://www.amazon.com/Living-Walden-Two-Behaviorist-Experim... ]
- yoyohello13 2y ago100 per second.