undefined | Better HN

0 pointsconst_cast10mo ago0 comments

The lines for humans aren't clearly drawn, but they are drawn. The main difference is that humans are humans and LLMs are computer programs.

I see no reason why we should even entertain the idea of extending human rights to computer programs, and so far, nobody has been able to give me any good reasons why.

Furthermore, why are we only entertaining the human rights that can be used for profit-driven purposes? Why do LLMs, for example, not have the right to free speech? Or an attorney? It seems highly unethical to grant these computer programs some protections as if they're humans but not grant them personhood. This is akin to slavery, which is something we actually have to consider. Anthropomorphization is a double-edged sword. We cannot simultaneously consider them human when convenient and then consider them programs when it's not. Or, if we want to do that, we need to form coherent argument to why, how, and when.

0 comments

EMIRELADERO10mo ago

You're thinking about it using the wrong framework IMO.

It's not about the program's rights, it's about the human's rights to use the program. Not the machine's right to do something, but the human's right to do something through a machine, or make a machine do something.

const_castOP10mo ago

No, because the entire argument hinges on the fact that LLMs learn, which is like humans learning, so it's transformative. That only works if you consider learning or transformation to be something that does not rely on the human spirit. Which, actually, most people do not believe. And it's pretty difficult to argue - we don't even know how learning works for people.

A lot of people just jump to LLMs learning like it's a foregone conclusion. Mm... no. You need to convince people of that. You'll find if you talk to non-tech people, they're not just going to believe you when you say that.

Why isn't an LLM more akin to a database or a compression algorithm? Why is it closer to human learning? After all, humans are humans and we have the exclusive right and power to determine what is human and what isn't. And database and compression algorithms are computer programs, of the same kind as an LLM.

EMIRELADERO10mo ago

Then the results would be the same, and it would still be fair use. I have yet to see an example that demonstrates LLMs plagiarize by default or by tendency.

Your causality seems to be inverted here. You seem to be implying that "learning" (or the ingestion and retention of information for the same means) is banned by default for everything, but we decide to allow it for humans as the sole exception. This is not the case. Everything not prohibited is allowed, and "intermediate copies" are considered to be vital to fair use by the court system.

1 more reply

Ukv10mo ago

> That only works if you consider learning or transformation to be something that does not rely on the human spirit.

Even changes made using simple non-ML algorithms can be transformative according to fair use doctrine, like the thumbnailing of images done by search engines. It's not meant in some spiritual sense.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsconst_cast10mo ago0 comments

The lines for humans aren't clearly drawn, but they are drawn. The main difference is that humans are humans and LLMs are computer programs.

I see no reason why we should even entertain the idea of extending human rights to computer programs, and so far, nobody has been able to give me any good reasons why.

0 comments

EMIRELADERO10mo ago

You're thinking about it using the wrong framework IMO.

const_castOP10mo ago

EMIRELADERO10mo ago

Then the results would be the same, and it would still be fair use. I have yet to see an example that demonstrates LLMs plagiarize by default or by tendency.

1 more reply

Ukv10mo ago

> That only works if you consider learning or transformation to be something that does not rely on the human spirit.

Even changes made using simple non-ML algorithms can be transformative according to fair use doctrine, like the thumbnailing of images done by search engines. It's not meant in some spiritual sense.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse