• GiveMemes@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m arguing that AI and a human are doing different things when they ‘learn’. A human learns. At the end of the day AI isn’t doing anything near human intelligenc and therefore isn’t critically thinking and applying that information to create new ideas, instead directly copying it based on what it thinks is most likely to come next.

    Therefore a human is actually creating new material whereas AI can only rehash old material. It’s the same problem of training AI on AI generated content. It makes any faults worse and worse over time because nothing ‘new’ is created.

    At least with current AI tech

    • Mahlzeit@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well, that is a philosophical or religious argument. It’s somewhat reminiscent of the claim that evolution can’t add information. That can’t be the basis for law.

      In any case, it doesn’t matter to copyright law as is, that you see it that way. The AI is the equivalent to that book on how to write bestsellers in my earlier reply. People extract information from copyrighted works to create new works, without needing permission. A closer example are programmers, who look into copyrighted references while they create.

      • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Except that it’s objectively different.

        A closer example would be a programmer copying somebody else’s code line for line but switching the order of some things around and calling it their own creation.

        AI cannot think nor add to work. It cannot extract information in order to answer a question. It is spitting out an exact copy of what was ingested because that is the scenario the system decided was “correct”.

        If AI could parse information and actually create new intellectual property like a human, I’d find it reasonable, but as it stands it’s just spitting out previous work.

          • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            You can say that without explaining but you just look like an idiot.

            It’s the same reason gpt4 will write you working ransomware without ever noticing that it’s writing ranosomware. The AI doesn’t understand what’s going on. It just does what it does because of a virtual cookie based on a calculated score.

            • Mahlzeit@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ok, where did GPT-4 copy the ransomware code? You can’t reshuffle lines of code much before the program breaks. Should be easy to find.