zlacker

Do people ever get tired of this argument that relies on anthropomorphizing these AI black boxes?

A computer isn't a human, and we already have laws that have a different effect depending on if it's a computer doing it or a human. LLMs are no different, no matter how catchy hyping them up as being == Humans may be.

>>sensan+(OP)
I didn't anthropomorphize the LLMS. It isn't about laws for the LLM, it is about laws for people would build and operate the LLM.

If you want to assert that groups of people that build and operate LLMs should operate under a different set of laws and regulations than individuals that read books in the library regarding "profit", I'm open to that idea. But that is not at all the same as "anthropomorphizing these AI black boxes".

>>sensan+(OP)
Great comment. The amount of anthropomorphizing that goes on in these threads is just baffling to me.

It seems obvious to me that, despite what current law says, there is something not right about what large companies are doing when they create LLMs.

If they are going to build off of humanity's collective work, their product should benefit all of humanity, and not just shareholders.

>>sensan+(OP)
> we already have laws that have a different effect depending on if it's a computer doing it or a human

which laws?

we generally accept computers as agents of their owners.

for example, a law that applies to a human travel agent also applies to a computerized travel agency service.