Meph504

I don't think anyone in this thread has suggested software are people.

But in the same regard it is very likely at some point the ability to simulate a human mind and persona is a real possibility.

Ha, I'm sorry do you think you've made a logical point by comparing rubbing your hands together, and "igniting a nuke."

Again, this isn't a "this at small scale is ok, but at large scale it isn't" argument. Small scale plagiarism isn't acceptable, neither is large scale.

You are refuting my reply seemingly without the context of the article, and larger issue at hand.

Don't be condescending when you aren't even accurately a following the original premise or purpose.

Why would I attempt to come up with a "better" example of a premise I reject?

Your vague response doesn't seem to have anything to do with the the base subject this whole thing revolves around. Plagiarism be it small scale or large isn't acceptable, and the idea that humans doing things that are wrong is ok, but AI doing the same thing at large scale is not ok?

Actually the burden is to prove that what AI is producing is plagiarism or copyright violation, this isn't about some special right, but that there are many making the case that things produced by AI are duplication of their work.

I'm also not sure where the concept of "the tool" be given a right to anything, That certainly isn't my argument, the right of the work should be to the user/owner used to create things with the tool. There are several pieces in the SFMOMA that use automation to create art, that art is credited to the creator of the machine, not the machine, I see AI in a similar lens.

You are intentionally selecting a device that makes duplicates of things as your comparator, so I can't tell if that is biased or some sort of flaw in your argument.

But an LLM being trained on works, and generating something based off of that training is not a duplication of any specific copyrighted material, and is wholly unique is not duplication.

Are you trying to make a shoestring argument?

Sure you can do that, but because there are several laws against that specific action already, you will be likely face prosecution, and the content (something poorly duplicated, not created) would be seized.

But lets assume, that your camera has an LLM in it, and it trained in this fashion, and you performed this action on countless other films, and then the camera could produce wholly unique and original work that did not have any duplication of the original works it sampled. The work produced would not be a violation of copyright, nor would it be plagiarism.

Just as someone whose education was to watch a large number of movies, and then created their own based on that education.

But as previously mentioned you may face the ramifications of violating the agreement you had for accessing the original source material in an illegal way.

Many things share characteristics with human, we have for decades created methods for systems to emulate and synthesize those characteristics. It is sort of delusional to think that the abilities of humans can't be produced by other systems, it is a severe delusion to think that proposing a machine can do it, is psychosis.

Well because no one is attempting to claim that the structures or products produced by using Hammers are plagiarism?

In a sane world, things produced by tools are owned and credited as creations by the users of tools, there are many who seem to argue that isn't the case with AI.

And that some how, that anything produced based on the knowledge it was trained on is some sort of plagiarism or copyright violation of the original source material even when none of that material is present in the end result?

So if we can't just leave it at its a tool, then we have to look at existing frameworks of laws and ethics to make the case of how this should be treated.

Is it a fallacy? Can you provide a legal or logical basis for this being treated differently.

The argument isn't small crime vs large crime. It is no crime regardless of scale.

If it is acceptable for a person to learn, then it should be acceptable for a machine. And any derived works produced from that information isn't theft or copyright violation.

Though I do think there is a valid gripe with the LLMs being trained on pirated materials. I've also personally learned from a lot of PDF of textbooks I didn't own.

How large do you think your some total of all things learned would be as a dataset, we aren't that different in that regard, just in how we amass that dataset and how curated it is.

I was trying to stick to the example, but I agree, that getting away with something doesn't determine if it is right or wrong. And the whole concept of that makes for shaky ground for any form of legal or ethical argument.

most of them seem to be falling into the "or later part"

Can you name a single password vault that has removed the ability to export, I would say it is a bit of wild speculation to assume this would happen. Even more so as there seems to only be anecdotal and speculative evidence this would happen.

Between the law suits, and the brand damage, there is likely very little upside for a company entertaining this idea.

> It’s like if I go to Golden Gate Park and pick one flower, I shouldn’t do that, but no one cares. But if I build a machine to automatically cut every flower in the park because I want to sell them, that’s different.

The problem here is, in your example the small scale example, and the large scale example are both unacceptable behavior.

Learning from others at a small scale is not only socially acceptable, but is the foundation of how advancement works.

So this concept of the issue of the scale being the issue isn't at its core the problem, its that something that that is desired behavior in a human, is not socially acceptable because of a machine is doing it.

I have dyslexia, and perhaps its because I developed a lot of mechanics to handle it, I don't find the font useful, it doesn't resolve any of the issues I have, and I find Console fonts more appealing.