It sounds stupidly simple, but AIs in itself was the idea to do the learning and solving problems more like a human would. By learning how to solve similar problems, and transfer the knowledge to a new problem.
Technically there’s an argument that our brain is nothing more than an AI with some special features (chemicals for feelings, reflexes, etc). But it’s good to remind ourselves we are nothing inherently special. Although all of us are free to feel special of course.
But we make the laws, and have the privilege of making them pro-human. It may be important in the larger philosophical sense to meditate on the difference between AIs and human intelligence, but in the immediate term we have the problem that some people want AIs to be able to freely ingest and repeat what humans spent a lot of time collecting and authoring in copyrighted books. Often, without even paying for a copy of the book that was used to train the AI.
As humans, we can write the law to be pro-human and facilitate human creativity.
You are asking a lot of good questions. And the truth is, none of these have good answers.
Should an AI be able to look at everything a human can?
Can an AI replicate a book in it’s original expression, throwing up arguments about copyright?
What is the difference between humans and AIs?
There are only 2 universal truths to these questions: it’s complicated, and it depends.
As humans, we can the law to be pro-human and facilitate human creativity.
Human creativity is complex and there are no studies that this directly facilitates human creativity.
But more importantly, should we do what you said? There’s a good reason there’s discussions about it, because not everyone agrees with you. And we should solve the ethical problems first before we come to the laws. Because we can’t base ethics on laws, and laws on instinct.
And that is the point.
It sounds stupidly simple, but AIs in itself was the idea to do the learning and solving problems more like a human would. By learning how to solve similar problems, and transfer the knowledge to a new problem.
Technically there’s an argument that our brain is nothing more than an AI with some special features (chemicals for feelings, reflexes, etc). But it’s good to remind ourselves we are nothing inherently special. Although all of us are free to feel special of course.
But we make the laws, and have the privilege of making them pro-human. It may be important in the larger philosophical sense to meditate on the difference between AIs and human intelligence, but in the immediate term we have the problem that some people want AIs to be able to freely ingest and repeat what humans spent a lot of time collecting and authoring in copyrighted books. Often, without even paying for a copy of the book that was used to train the AI.
As humans, we can write the law to be pro-human and facilitate human creativity.
You are asking a lot of good questions. And the truth is, none of these have good answers.
Should an AI be able to look at everything a human can?
Can an AI replicate a book in it’s original expression, throwing up arguments about copyright?
What is the difference between humans and AIs?
There are only 2 universal truths to these questions: it’s complicated, and it depends.
Human creativity is complex and there are no studies that this directly facilitates human creativity.
But more importantly, should we do what you said? There’s a good reason there’s discussions about it, because not everyone agrees with you. And we should solve the ethical problems first before we come to the laws. Because we can’t base ethics on laws, and laws on instinct.