| > I think the dictionary definition is more than sufficient: "the acquisition of knowledge or skills through experience, study, or by being taught." This is what I mean by running with your own made up definition. I mean, if a human looked at a bunch of art, essays, etc. and then was able to produce similar works, we'd normally consider that "learning." What word would you use for being able to reproduce Picasso (or whomever) by looking at a bunch of examples? Also I don't think I have defined "think" or "experience" at all. But I'd point out that I don't see anything like a principled boundary around them or that we can point to something that humans do that AIs don't or can't do. It seems to fall back on something that looks like qualia or subjective internal experience and philosophy hasn't resolved that with respect to other humans... except by analogy. "I think the other humans are like me and I have subjective internal experience, so they probably have it to, rather than being p-zombies." If you have a better answer to that, feel free to tell me, it'd be interesting. > It's not a new thing that some uses by a machine can be infringing, and others, non-infringing. Why now must it be that machines should be analyzed the same as humans all of the sudden? Sure, I'll agree that it's not even necessary to consider the works transformative or whatever. FWIW, I don't think that AIs should be getting their own copyrights or anything like that, I'm just saying that the training data shouldn't forever taint the output no matter what's produced. |
Would we? What you described sounds a lot more like copying than learning. That's why I asked the question I originally did. Your whole perspective seems to be based on an ignorant and misanthropic view of the arts. That art students just go to school to look at things so they can then reproduce things that look like those things. It's a bit asinine and insulting.
>Also I don't think I have defined "think" or "experience" at all. But I'd point out that I don't see anything like a principled boundary around them or that we can point to something that humans do that AIs don't or can't do. It seems to fall back on something that looks like qualia or subjective internal experience and philosophy hasn't resolved that with respect to other humans... except by analogy. "I think the other humans are like me and I have subjective internal experience, so they probably have it to, rather than being p-zombies."
That's your burden to demonstrate as the person equivocating AI to humanity. You couldn't do it with "learning" without redefining learning, and you can't do it with "experience" or "think", without redefining those words either. Who is seriously advocating that LLMs are thinking and experiencing? I haven't seen anyone make those arguments.
>Sure, I'll agree that it's not even necessary to consider the works transformative or whatever.
That wasn't my point. A transformative analysis is one of the most fundamental elements of determining if something is a copy or not in copyright law. So I don't really have any idea what you are talking about with this one.
>FWIW, I don't think that AIs should be getting their own copyrights or anything like that, I'm just saying that the training data shouldn't forever taint the output no matter what's produced.
Yeah but your only argument for that is to redefine learning to pretend it's the same thing that humans are doing when that's clearly not the case.