[paxys]

> is that an AI, being a statistical model and not generally intelligent, should not be allowed to disregard the copyright of its source material

But then you are just shifting the problem forward by an inch. What happens when tomorrow someone declares that their model is generally intelligent and is therefore allowed to disregard copyright when training just like a person can?

[jasonzemos]

This point is of the utmost importance from a public policymaking perspective. Laws such as these are easy to craft now and difficult to change later. I feel like we are previewing an unfolding disaster here.

The future will clearly yield a class of "beings" striving for some degree of indistinguishability from or coexistence with humans. Proposals that discriminate --literally discriminate -- without respect for the principles of universality and equal treatment under law are creating and condemning a marginalized group before it even reaches maturity. This is an old and tired theme repeated through history. Let's foresee this and not get it wrong.

[freejazz]

Is it your experience that people's facial declarations cary the day in legal disputes? It's not mine. Rather, it seems like the whole thing is designed to provide scrutiny against bare facial declarations that something is true or false.

I see this on HN all the time "someone just has to claim" "someone just has to say". Yeah... that's not how it works. People can say whatever they want, that doesn't mean it satisfied their burden of proof. Self serving testimony is the lowest form of evidence imaginable.

[orbital-decay]

Intelligence lacks any legal definition, for starters. And if a law like that will provide an arbitrary line in the sand, it will just disincentivize AI research in general.

[freejazz]

Often, when laws are passed, they provide definitions for the terms in the law that require definitions. Regardless, I'm not aware of any proposals for copyright law where "intelligence" is used.