Some argue that bots should be entitled to ingest any content they see, because people can.

  • tomi000@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Interesting, please tell me how ‘parroting back a convincing puree of the model it was trained on’ is in any way different from what humans are doing.

    • hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      And that is the point.

      It sounds stupidly simple, but AIs in itself was the idea to do the learning and solving problems more like a human would. By learning how to solve similar problems, and transfer the knowledge to a new problem.

      Technically there’s an argument that our brain is nothing more than an AI with some special features (chemicals for feelings, reflexes, etc). But it’s good to remind ourselves we are nothing inherently special. Although all of us are free to feel special of course.

      • RickRussell_CA@kbin.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        But we make the laws, and have the privilege of making them pro-human. It may be important in the larger philosophical sense to meditate on the difference between AIs and human intelligence, but in the immediate term we have the problem that some people want AIs to be able to freely ingest and repeat what humans spent a lot of time collecting and authoring in copyrighted books. Often, without even paying for a copy of the book that was used to train the AI.

        As humans, we can write the law to be pro-human and facilitate human creativity.