Comment by anileated
22 days ago
> If we could incrementally update our own brains by swapping cells for chips, what percentage of our brain has to be chips before us learning from a book is a violation of copyright?
The same percentage at which you stop qualifying to be human and become an unthinking tool, fully controlled by its operator to do whatever they want, without free will of its own and without any ethical concerns about abuse and slavery, like is the case with all LLMs.
(Of course, it is a moot point, because creating a human-level consciousness with chips is a thought experiment not grounded in reality.)
> When learning to recite a recent children's poem in kindergarten, what level of accuracy can a child attain before their ability to repeat it privately to one other person at a time is a copyright violation?
Any level thanks to the concept called human rights and freedoms, famously not applied to machines and other unthinking tools.
This seems short sighted. The idea of when a "mechanical man" should be given the same rights as a man has been explored for a long time, as an echo of the past when people had the same debate about women and non-Europeans.
The ideas of FTL travel or existence of bearded people in the sky were also explored for a long time.
> as an echo of the past when people had the same debate about women and non-Europeans.
If you need help spotting the difference between skin color or gender variation and an imagined ability to imbue something we cannot even define (like consciousness) onto arbitrary substrates, I am not the right person for that.
If you think LLMs are like conscious humans and should be given the same rights, I don’t see anything wrong with it. You should realize, however, that this means the LLM industry would instantly be dead because you cannot really subject conscious humans to what LLMs are subjected to in order to be profitable.