zlacker

This is a bit like someone saying they don't want cars traveling down the sidewalk because they're too big and heavy, and then having someone ask how big and heavy a person needs to get before it becomes illegal for them to travel down the sidewalk.

It misses the point, which is that cars aren't people. Arguments like "well a car uses friction to travel along the ground and fuel to create kinetic energy, just like humans do", aren't convincing to me. An algorithm is not a human, and we should stop pretending the same rules apply to each.

>>dorkwo+(OP)
Thank you, love this response.

>>dorkwo+(OP)
It's easy to explain the difference between a person and a car in a way that's both specific and relevant to the rules.

If we're at an analogy to "cars aren't people", then it sounds like it doesn't matter how many books the AI reads, even one book would cause problems.

But if that's the case, why make the argument about how many books it reads?

Are you sure you're arguing the same thing as the ancestor post? Or do you merely agree with their conclusion but you're making an entirely different argument?

>>dorkwo+(OP)
Then again, bicycles are neither people nor cars, and yet they make claim to both sidewalk and the road, even though they clearly are neither, and are a danger and a nuisance on both.

>>dorkwo+(OP)
Is that a good example? People have been arguing in court about that exact thing for years, first due to Segway and then due to e-scooters and bikes. There's plenty of people who make arguments of the form "it's not a car or a bike so I'm allowed on the sidewalk", or make arguments about limited top speeds etc.

>>mike_h+x3
> first due to Segway and then due to e-scooters and bikes

Those aren't cars.

But you've identified that the closer something comes to a human in terms of speed and scale, the blurrier the lines become. In these terms I would argue that GPT-4 is far, far removed from a human.

>>dorkwo+f7
Legally they're vehicles sometimes, and sometimes technically supposed to not drive on sidewalks. Perhaps that's Segway equivalent to fair use scientific researches on crawled web data.

>>mike_h+x3
> Is that a good example?

Yes. It is pertinent not only to this particular instance (or instances, plural; AI copyright violations and scooters on sidewalks), but illustrates for example why treating corporations as "people" in freedom-of-speech law is misguided (and stupid, corrupt, and just fucking wrong). So it is a very good example.

>>numpad+2i
Research exception is an explicit statutory exception to copyright, not a fair use case.