Comment by anon84873628
6 months ago
I do appreciate your point because it's one of the interesting side effects of AI to me. Revealing just how much we humans are a stack of inductive reasoning and not-actually-free-willed rehash of all that came before.
Of course, humans are also "trained" on their lived sensory experiences. Most people learn more about ballistics by playing catch than reading a textbook.
When it comes to copyright I don't think the point changes much. See the sibling comments which discuss constructive infringement and liability. Also, it's normal for us to have different rules for humans vs machines / corporations. And scale matters -- a single human just isn't capable of doing what the LLM can. Playing a record for your friends at home isn't a "performance", but playing it to a concert hall audience of thousands is.
My point isn’t adversarial, we most likely (in my most humble opinion) “learn” the same way as anything learns. That is to say, we are not unique in terms of understanding, “understandings”.
Are the ballistics we learn by physical interaction any different from the factual learning of ballistics that, for example, a squirrel learns, from their physical interactions?