4 ms·
> You have an autonomous system that's ingesting copyrighted material, doing math on it, storing it, and producing outputs on user requests People are also aut
by RandallBrown 2y ago
> You have an autonomous system that's ingesting copyrighted material, doing math on it, storing it, and producing outputs on user requests
People are also autonomous systems that ingest copyrighted material, do "math" on it, store it, and produce outputs on user requests.
The real difference is the scale at which a computer can ingest copyrighted material is MUCH greater than what a person can do. Does that make it illegal? Maybe, maybe not.
- Spivak 2y agoAm I in a bad sci-fi novel? People aren't machines! How is this a such a difficult concept? LLMs have as much thought as quicksort. I swear to god humans will anthropomorphize everything except ourselves. Do y'all's salaries depend on this or something? There is no rule that says "If a human can do something, a computer program instructed by a human can do the same thing." Hell that rule doesn't even exist for humans acting as stand-ins. I can't send someone I hire out of the country and have them use my passport. It's why you can watch a movie in a theater but an autonomous system working on your behalf, a camera, can't. Github made a tool, it's as alive as a hammer. It "learns" as much as your programmable pad lock. Whether or not the human employees of Github are allowed to use copyrighted material to make that tool, and whether the human employees of Github are performing a copyrighted work when users make use of the tool is the legal question. Y'all wouldn't survive the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie apocalypse.
- amanaplanacanal 2y agoNormally, if it is legal for a human to do something, I would assume that human could legally use a computer to help do that thing. Are there cases where this isn't true?