[tensor]

It's also perfectly reasonable to say it's ok for a program or machine to do the same thing as a human. This has been the basis for the technological revolution since the dawn of technology.

[leereeves]

It's legal and perfectly reasonable for a human being to combine organic fuels with oxygen from the air to create energy and CO2. Any law restricting that would be the worst form of tyranny.

It would not be reasonable to allow machines to do that at unlimited scale without restrictions.

(Hopefully the fossil fuels industry won't draw inspiration from the legal arguments made by AI companies...)

[Eisenstein]

> It's legal and perfectly reasonable for a human being to combine organic fuels with oxygen from the air to create energy and CO2.

Is there any line past which it becomes unreasonable?

> It would not be reasonable to allow machines to do that at unlimited scale without restrictions.

If the machines were a replacement for a damaged respiratory system in a human would it reasonable?

What about if the machine were being used by a human to do something else that was important?

Where is the line where it becomes reasonable?

[leereeves]

> Is there any line past which it becomes unreasonable?

That's exactly the question we should be asking about AI and fair use.

[Eisenstein]

Are you refusing to engage with your own metaphor?

[leereeves]

You're taking the metaphor much too seriously. It was only an example to illustrate that human rights don't automatically apply to machines. Let's not read too much into it.

[Eisenstein]

You made a claim and used a metaphor to demonstrate that claim. I asked a very simple question about the bounds of the metaphor and thus the claim. You are dodging answering the questions which mean that you cannot defend the logic of your claim. Thus you have forfeited that your claim is valid and 'human rights don't automatically apply to machines' has not been illustrated.