[customguy]

What a total non-sequitur. You think you found flaw in one of the examples, instead of seeing if you can come up with better ones, you say it so it can't be this, therefore it's a completely different thing that makes zero sense. Machines aren't "doing" anything, they're being wielded by humans. And they're doing it at scale, to other humans, via the force multiplication of machines.

[Meph504]

Why would I attempt to come up with a "better" example of a premise I reject?

Your vague response doesn't seem to have anything to do with the the base subject this whole thing revolves around. Plagiarism be it small scale or large isn't acceptable, and the idea that humans doing things that are wrong is ok, but AI doing the same thing at large scale is not ok?

[customguy]

> Your vague response doesn't seem to have anything to do with the the base subject this whole thing revolves around.

No, I instead refuted your reply.

> but AI doing the same thing at large scale is not ok?

No, humans doing things can be okay or not so okay depending on the scale they do them at. "AI" isn't "doing" anything by itself, at all, so that doesn't enter into it at all. You cannot separate "scale" and "thing". Rubbing your hands to make them warmer is fine, igniting a nuke is not, both aren't "basically the same thing, raising temperature, just at different scales". You didn't reject the premise, you didn't understand it in the first place, and knocked down your own straw man instead. Which I pointed out, that's all.

[Meph504]

Ha, I'm sorry do you think you've made a logical point by comparing rubbing your hands together, and "igniting a nuke."

Again, this isn't a "this at small scale is ok, but at large scale it isn't" argument. Small scale plagiarism isn't acceptable, neither is large scale.

You are refuting my reply seemingly without the context of the article, and larger issue at hand.

Don't be condescending when you aren't even accurately a following the original premise or purpose.

[customguy]

The context of this subthread is explaining that

> If it’s OK (or at least negligible on a small scale), then it must be OK on a large scale.

is a fallacy. Which it is. You confirm this by apparently seeing a difference between generating a little bit of heat and a whole lot, to name one of infinite examples anyone can easily come up with.

> Again, this isn't a "this at small scale is ok, but at large scale it isn't" argument.

You just keep doing the thing I pointed out in my first reply, you claim "it's not this" on a technicality, and then say "so therefore it's this instead", and the other thing is a criticism nobody brings up, ever.

And it gains you nothing, because if plagiarism isn't even okay at small scale, surely you can see how it's even less okay at big scale.

[thedevilslawyer]

There are no such examples (recommended for humans, but abhorrent for machines).

[customguy]

> (recommended for humans, but abhorrent for machines).

That's not the criticism, that's the straw man used to dodge the criticism. Of course the straw man makes no sense, that's why it gets put up.

Machines aren't doing anything, humans are doing things, with or without machines.

"It's fine to raise the temperature of your surroundings by 0.0001 degrees by exhaling. It's less fine to set a house on fire, and even less fine to ignite a nuke. But aren't the all the same thing? How hypocritical that raising temperature is okay for some but not others???"

That things can change quality with quantity/frequency is trivially obvious, and you can think of many examples. Bad ones, good ones, doesn't matter. The point of OP stands, all that was added was how absolutely brazen the nonsense is getting.

[thedevilslawyer]

Sorry, but the point stands for you because of you feel about this topic. It does not stand logically.

Ultimately we have to reckon with the fact that there's nothing which is recommended to do X of, but is abhorrent to do 10X of.

[customguy]

> there's nothing which is recommended to do X of, but is abhorrent to do 10X of.

No we don't, because that's nonsense. You can ask a stranger in the street for the time of day once, and they will react very, very differently if you ask them 10 times in a row. You can drive N miles per hour in a school zone, you cannot drive at 10x the speed, and so on.

[thedevilslawyer]

Ok, I see your point. We live with tiny inconveniences, that we would not at 10x.

But I don't see how that relates to copyright or llm at all. 'Learning', at scale, is not an inconvenience, atleast in any forward looking society.

[musicale]

> There are no such examples (recommended for humans, but abhorrent for machines)

claiming to be human