[qarl]

We're not talking about rights, we're talking about illegal acts. If it's illegal for a machine to do it, how can it be ok for a human?

Just from a rational argumentation point of view. Clearly if a law is written saying as much, then sure. But there is no such copyright law like that yet.

[NoOn3]

The issue is certainly not so simple. But it seems to me, purely theoretically, that the rules don't necessarily have to be the same for living people and non-living machines.

[qarl]

Well - actually - it is pretty simple. For something to be illegal, there must be a law saying it's illegal. There are no laws distinguishing humans from machines in copyright law.

[triceratops]

> There are no laws distinguishing humans from machines in copyright law

Correct. Because until very recently there was no need.

[qarl]

AH. So you agree that it's not illegal.

[triceratops]

What isn't?

[qarl]

I'm just happy you agree with me.

[pkaeding]

But machines don't do things. People do things, and they use tools/machines to do those things more easily or efficiently.

[qarl]

My apologies - I'm speaking loosely of course. Translate all my claims about machines breaking the law into claims about humans using machine breaking the law.

[pkaeding]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be pedantic. I was trying to make the point (which I think is in line with your point) that the fact that AI is involved here doesn't make a difference. It is a tool, but the people using the tool are (as always) responsible for the outcome.