I'd add to this, the damage an LLM could do is much less than a human could do in terms of individual production. A person can paint so many forgeries... A machine can create many, many more. The dilusion of value from a person learning is far different than machine learning. The value extracted and diluted is night and day in terms of scale.
Not to say what will/won't happen. In practice, what I've seen doesn't scare me much in terms of what LLMs produce vs. what a person has to clean up after it's produced.
They are not the same because an LLM is a construct. It is not a living entity with agency, motive, and all the things the law was intended for.
We will see new law as this tech develops.
For an analogy, many people call infringement theft and they are wrong to do so.
They will focus on the someone getting something without having followed the right process part while ignoring the equally important someone else being denied the use of, or loss of property part.
The former is an element in common between theft and infringement. And it is compelling!
But, the real meat in theft is all about people losing property! And that is not common at all.
This AI thing is similar. The common elements are super compelling.
But it just won't be about that in the end. It will be all about the details unique to AI code.
Using the word "construct" isn't adding anything to the conversation. If we bioengineer a sentient human, would you feel OK torturing it because it's "just a construct"? If that's unethical to you, how about half meat and half silicon? How much silicon is too much silicon and makes torture OK?
> Most people will [privilege meat]
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals, and you know it". I agree that humans are likely to pass bad laws, because we are mostly just dumb, panicky dangerous animals in the end. That's different than asking an internet commentor why they're being so confident in their opinions though.
Full stop. We've not done that yet. When we do, we can revisit the law / discussion.
We can remedy "construct" this way:
Your engineered human would be a being. Being a being is one primary difference between us and these LLM things we are toying with right now.
And yes, beings are absolutely going to value themselves over non beings. It makes perfect sense to do so.
These LLM entities are not beings. That's fundamental. And it's why an extremely large number of other beings are going to find your comment laughable. I did!
You are attempting to simplify things too much to be meaningful.
Define "being". If it's so fundamental, it should be pretty easy, no?
And I'd like if this were simple. Unfortunately there's too many people throwing around over-simplifications like "They are not the same because an LLM is a construct" or "These LLM entities are not beings". If you'll excuse the comparison, it's like arguing with theists that can't reason about their ideological foundations, but can provide specious soundbites in spades.
A being is a living thing with a will to survive, need for food, and a corporeal existence, in other words, is born, lives for a time, then dies.
Secondly, beings are unique. Each one has a state that ends when they do and begins when they do. So far, we are unable to copy this state. Maybe we will one day, but that day, should there ever be one, is far away. We will live our lives never seeing this come to pass.
Finally, beings have agency. They do not require prompting.
Not to say what will/won't happen. In practice, what I've seen doesn't scare me much in terms of what LLMs produce vs. what a person has to clean up after it's produced.