[TekMol]

Wouldn't it be racism to deny artificial brains to read your content while publicly offering it to human brains?

If that would be possible and allowed, how long should this system be kept up? Even after AI has become just as complex and emotional as humans are?

Would this also be a good idea if a human brain would be digitally cloned verbatim? If not, why is one program allowed to read while the other is not?

Will AI have to suffer a "second class intelligence" fate until it has its Rosa Parks moment and a revolution takes place?

So many questions. I feel it might be better to live in peace with this new type of intelligence here on planet earth. Right from the start.

[arp242]

This is really the stuff of science fiction. I think these are important questions, but also irrelevant when discussing ChatGPT because it's nowhere near "as complex and emotional as humans are" and I don't expect we'll have a system that will be in the near future.

But to answer the question: it's not really about who or what views the content, but rather for what purpose it's used. My brain might use your post as input for something I will write in the future, either consciously or subconsciously. That's kind of how humans work. But I'm not reading every single comment on HN for the explicit purpose of using that as input for future writings to make money off. It's a subtle but important difference. In this post that's shortened to "I don't want ChatGPT to ..." because today that's effectively the same.

[dbtc]

These are not artificial brains, not yet anyway. Perhaps not for a long while.

I hope that the rest of earth's currently living animals are granted rights before these digital creations.

[TekMol]

What is your definition of an artificial brain?