[insane_dreamer]

> The problem here is, in your example the small scale example, and the large scale example are both unacceptable behavior.

no, not really, or at the very least they're not at all in the same category of "unacceptable behavior"

[Meph504]

The argument isn't small crime vs large crime. It is no crime regardless of scale.

If it is acceptable for a person to learn, then it should be acceptable for a machine. And any derived works produced from that information isn't theft or copyright violation.

Though I do think there is a valid gripe with the LLMs being trained on pirated materials. I've also personally learned from a lot of PDF of textbooks I didn't own.

[dtn]

> If it is acceptable for a person to learn, then it should be acceptable for a machine.

Is there a name for the fallacy when people act like models and algorithms should be granted the same rights as human beings?

[simianparrot]

AI psychosis would be my term. When you attribute to software the characteristics of a human you are in a psychosis.

[Meph504]

Many things share characteristics with human, we have for decades created methods for systems to emulate and synthesize those characteristics. It is sort of delusional to think that the abilities of humans can't be produced by other systems, it is a severe delusion to think that proposing a machine can do it, is psychosis.

[simianparrot]

That’s not the topic. Read the post I replied to. No matter what a piece of software will never be a human.

[Meph504]

I don't think anyone in this thread has suggested software are people.

But in the same regard it is very likely at some point the ability to simulate a human mind and persona is a real possibility.

[Meph504]

Is it a fallacy? Can you provide a legal or logical basis for this being treated differently.

[lelanthran]

Hammers aren't granted rights.

Tools aren't granted rights. Why do we need to make an exemption for AI?

[Meph504]

Well because no one is attempting to claim that the structures or products produced by using Hammers are plagiarism?

In a sane world, things produced by tools are owned and credited as creations by the users of tools, there are many who seem to argue that isn't the case with AI.

And that some how, that anything produced based on the knowledge it was trained on is some sort of plagiarism or copyright violation of the original source material even when none of that material is present in the end result?

So if we can't just leave it at its a tool, then we have to look at existing frameworks of laws and ethics to make the case of how this should be treated.

[dtn]

I'll just take my tools (video camera) into a cinema to learn off the latest Hollywood flicks. It's not an accurate 1:1 representation to the original source material, so the output that I've produced from it belongs to me.

[lelanthran]

> Well because no one is attempting to claim that the structures or products produced by using Hammers are plagiarism?

Of course they are! Is a video recorder not a tool? No one is claiming rights for video recorders.

Once again, the status quo is that tools do not get rights, the burden is on you to prove why an exemption should be made, not on those who are asking "why should tools get rights?"