...it is? I didn't see that question raised in OP's text at all. What do legacy human legalities have to do with how AI will behave?
> Because it's false equivalence? ChatGPT isn't a human being.
Is this important? What is so special about human learning that it puts it in a morally distinct category from the learning that our successors will do?
It sounds like OP is concerned with the ad-driven model of income on the internet, and whether it requires breaking in order for AI to both thrive and be fair.
...it is? I didn't see that question raised in OP's text at all. What do legacy human legalities have to do with how AI will behave?
> Because it's false equivalence? ChatGPT isn't a human being.
Is this important? What is so special about human learning that it puts it in a morally distinct category from the learning that our successors will do?
It sounds like OP is concerned with the ad-driven model of income on the internet, and whether it requires breaking in order for AI to both thrive and be fair.