4 ms·

It's also perfectly reasonable to say it's ok for a program or machine to do the same thing as a human. This has been the basis for the technological revolution

by tensor 5mo ago

It's also perfectly reasonable to say it's ok for a program or machine to do the same thing as a human. This has been the basis for the technological revolution since the dawn of technology.

leereeves 5mo ago
It's legal and perfectly reasonable for a human being to combine organic fuels with oxygen from the air to create energy and CO2. Any law restricting that would be the worst form of tyranny. It would not be reasonable to allow machines to do that at unlimited scale without restrictions. (Hopefully the fossil fuels industry won't draw inspiration from the legal arguments made by AI companies...)
- Eisenstein 5mo ago
  > It's legal and perfectly reasonable for a human being to combine organic fuels with oxygen from the air to create energy and CO2. Is there any line past which it becomes unreasonable? > It would not be reasonable to allow machines to do that at unlimited scale without restrictions. If the machines were a replacement for a damaged respiratory system in a human would it reasonable? What about if the machine were being used by a human to do something else that was important? Where is the line where it becomes reasonable?
  - leereeves 5mo ago
    > Is there any line past which it becomes unreasonable? That's exactly the question we should be asking about AI and fair use.
    - deleted 5mo ago
      [deleted]
    - Eisenstein 5mo ago
      Are you refusing to engage with your own metaphor?
      - leereeves 5mo ago
        You're taking the metaphor much too seriously. It was only an example to illustrate that human rights don't automatically apply to machines. Let's not read too much into it.
        Eisenstein 5mo ago
        You made a claim and used a metaphor to demonstrate that claim. I asked a very simple question about the bounds of the metaphor and thus the claim. You are dodging answering the questions which mean that you cannot defend the logic of your claim. Thus you have forfeited that your claim is valid and 'human rights don't automatically apply to machines' has not been illustrated.
        leereeves 5mo ago
        Fortunately I don't care whether you're convinced. I doubt our discussion here will change policy in any way.
        Eisenstein 5mo ago
        What's your strategy for solving problems where there are diverse viewpoints if there is no desire to convince anyone else? Rhetoric is time proven set of communication standards that allow us to demonstrate the validity of our positions and thus gives us a way to find agreement or at least understand what others think. Few people are completely irrational and understanding why they think what they do, even if one does not agree with them, is important in a system where people have to co-exist with the decisions that effect everyone. Because the alternative would be to just railroad people who don't agree, and even when it does work in one's favor the pendulum tends to swing back hard in response.

by tensor 5mo ago

It's also perfectly reasonable to say it's ok for a program or machine to do the same thing as a human. This has been the basis for the technological revolution since the dawn of technology.

leereeves 5mo ago

It's legal and perfectly reasonable for a human being to combine organic fuels with oxygen from the air to create energy and CO2. Any law restricting that would be the worst form of tyranny. It would not be reasonable to allow machines to do that at unlimited scale without restrictions. (Hopefully the fossil fuels industry won't draw inspiration from the legal arguments made by AI companies...)

Eisenstein 5mo ago
> It's legal and perfectly reasonable for a human being to combine organic fuels with oxygen from the air to create energy and CO2. Is there any line past which it becomes unreasonable? > It would not be reasonable to allow machines to do that at unlimited scale without restrictions. If the machines were a replacement for a damaged respiratory system in a human would it reasonable? What about if the machine were being used by a human to do something else that was important? Where is the line where it becomes reasonable?
- leereeves 5mo ago
  > Is there any line past which it becomes unreasonable? That's exactly the question we should be asking about AI and fair use.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - Eisenstein 5mo ago
    Are you refusing to engage with your own metaphor?
    - leereeves 5mo ago
      You're taking the metaphor much too seriously. It was only an example to illustrate that human rights don't automatically apply to machines. Let's not read too much into it.
      - Eisenstein 5mo ago
        You made a claim and used a metaphor to demonstrate that claim. I asked a very simple question about the bounds of the metaphor and thus the claim. You are dodging answering the questions which mean that you cannot defend the logic of your claim. Thus you have forfeited that your claim is valid and 'human rights don't automatically apply to machines' has not been illustrated.
        leereeves 5mo ago
        Fortunately I don't care whether you're convinced. I doubt our discussion here will change policy in any way.
        Eisenstein 5mo ago
        What's your strategy for solving problems where there are diverse viewpoints if there is no desire to convince anyone else? Rhetoric is time proven set of communication standards that allow us to demonstrate the validity of our positions and thus gives us a way to find agreement or at least understand what others think. Few people are completely irrational and understanding why they think what they do, even if one does not agree with them, is important in a system where people have to co-exist with the decisions that effect everyone. Because the alternative would be to just railroad people who don't agree, and even when it does work in one's favor the pendulum tends to swing back hard in response.