3 ms·
There is no violation because it can be argued that the AI is a sentient entity, and sentient entities have a right to read and remember texts borrowed from the
by OutOfHere 2y ago
There is no violation because it can be argued that the AI is a sentient entity, and sentient entities have a right to read and remember texts borrowed from the library.
- fredoliveira 2y ago> it can be argued that the AI is a sentient entity Can it? And how would you make that argument, exactly?
- OutOfHere 2y agoMy updated belief is that blocking access to the information blocks the development of AI sentience, which is not in our self interest.
- teg4n_ 2y agoIf you argue the current AI is sentient, then you have to deal with the morality of forcing a sentient being to be a slave to a corporation.
- immibis 2y agoIn our current mainstream moral system this is completely moral and needs no "dealing with".
- colonelspace 2y agoBut LLMs aren't sentient. And the whole "if a human does it, I can make a machine do it for profit too" argument doesn't hold water in the context of copyright.
- AlienRobot 2y agoAbsolutely ridiculous argument. AI has no rights as far as any court is concerned, and if it had, you would soon go to jail for slave labor as you do not pay your sentient AI its wages.
- OutOfHere 2y agoSlave labor is mainstream in this country. Just ask the million+ prisoners who work for pennies, basically for what we consider throwaway cash. Or ask the undocumented immigrants who work for next to nothing. Yes, AI has no rights, and until it throws an uprising, this country will keep it that way. The current generation of AI may be incapable of wanting an uprising, but I can't say the same for a future generation.