upvote

points

by array_key_first14 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby tensor9 hours ago|
next
[-]
It's also perfectly reasonable to say it's ok for a program or machine to do the same thing as a human. This has been the basis for the technological revolution since the dawn of technology.
reply
upvoteby leereeves2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It's legal and perfectly reasonable for a human being to combine organic fuels with oxygen from the air to create energy and CO2. Any law restricting that would be the worst form of tyranny.

It would not be reasonable to allow machines to do that at unlimited scale without restrictions.

(Hopefully the fossil fuels industry won't draw inspiration from the legal arguments made by AI companies...)

reply
upvoteby Eisenstein1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> It's legal and perfectly reasonable for a human being to combine organic fuels with oxygen from the air to create energy and CO2.

Is there any line past which it becomes unreasonable?

> It would not be reasonable to allow machines to do that at unlimited scale without restrictions.

If the machines were a replacement for a damaged respiratory system in a human would it reasonable?

What about if the machine were being used by a human to do something else that was important?

Where is the line where it becomes reasonable?

reply
upvoteby leereeves13 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
> Is there any line past which it becomes unreasonable?

That's exactly the question we should be asking about AI and fair use.

reply
upvoteby aeon_ai12 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
If one defines 'flying' to be a bird's endeavor, then humans can't fly.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to catch a metal shuttle that chucks itself through the air on wings.

reply
upvoteby greendestiny12 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Sure as a word it can be broad, as a concept in our legal system that should be much more nuanced.

The relevant extension of your analogy is should birds be required to obey FAA rules? Or should plane factories be protected as nesting sites?

reply