3 ms·
We're not talking about rights, we're talking about illegal acts. If it's illegal for a machine to do it, how can it be ok for a human? Just from a rational a
by qarl 6mo ago
We're not talking about rights, we're talking about illegal acts. If it's illegal for a machine to do it, how can it be ok for a human?
Just from a rational argumentation point of view. Clearly if a law is written saying as much, then sure. But there is no such copyright law like that yet.
- NoOn3 6mo agoThe issue is certainly not so simple. But it seems to me, purely theoretically, that the rules don't necessarily have to be the same for living people and non-living machines.
- qarl 6mo agoWell - actually - it is pretty simple. For something to be illegal, there must be a law saying it's illegal. There are no laws distinguishing humans from machines in copyright law.
- triceratops 6mo ago> There are no laws distinguishing humans from machines in copyright law Correct. Because until very recently there was no need.
- qarl 6mo agoAH. So you agree that it's not illegal.
- triceratops 6mo agoWhat isn't?
- qarl 6mo agoI'm just happy you agree with me.
- triceratops 6mo agoI don't agree with most of what you've said on this discussion. I couldn't have been clearer about that in my other replies. The only part I did agree on was a hypothetical that hasn't happened.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- qarl 6mo ago[dead]
- pkaeding 6mo agoBut machines don't do things. People do things, and they use tools/machines to do those things more easily or efficiently.
- qarl 6mo agoMy apologies - I'm speaking loosely of course. Translate all my claims about machines breaking the law into claims about humans using machine breaking the law.
- pkaeding 6mo agoSorry, I wasn't trying to be pedantic. I was trying to make the point (which I think is in line with your point) that the fact that AI is involved here doesn't make a difference. It is a tool, but the people using the tool are (as always) responsible for the outcome.