• Rakn@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This comparison doesn’t make sense to me. If the person then makes money off it: yes.

    Otherwise the question would be if copyright law should be abolished entirely. E.g. if I create a new news portal with content copied form other source, would that be okay then?

    You are comparing a computer program to a human. Which… is weird.

    • dolphone@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just because it’s weird to you doesn’t make it any less valid.

      As a species we sit at the threshold of artificial life, created by us. Seems silly to think that such a monumental jump would not be accompanied by substantial changes in our made up rules of engagement.

      • Rakn@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Might be a fundamental difference in opinion. I don’t see us anywhere near anything related to artificial life.

        What they’ve built there is a product, a computer program and they used other folks data to build it without getting their permission. I also cannot go and just copy and paste source code from all over the internet to build my program. There are licenses attached to it that determine what you can or can’t do with it.

        I feel like just because the term “learning” is involved people no longer view it as simply building or programming a system. Which it is.

    • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      If the person then makes money off it: yes.

      Every idea you’ve ever profited from was inspired by something you saw in the past. That’s my point. There are no ideas that exist entirely within a vacuum, they all stem from something else, we just draw a line arbitrarily and say “this idea is too much like that other idea”. But if you combine 3 other ideas into something that is sufficiently non-obvious (which is entirely relative) then we call it “novel” and “original”.

      I think the line should probably be, either it’s a tool and you need to license any work it references, OR it’s conscious, has rights, gets paid, and is a person. I think most tech companies would much rather stay in the former camp, not having to answer any ethical dilemmas if they don’t have to. But on the other hand, the first company to make something that people consider actually “conscious” will make history.

      You are comparing a computer program to a human. Which… is weird.

      Sounds like you have about 100 years of philosophical discussion, AI research, and scifi to catch up on 😄.

      • Rakn@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        It feels like you are making a computer program out to be more than it actually is right now. At the same time this all isn’t about what that program is doing. It’s about how it was built.