Comment on Judge disses Star Trek icon Data’s poetry while ruling AI can’t author works
General_Effort@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
If AI ever reached Data levels of intelligence, Millett suggested that copyright laws could shift to grant copyrights to AI-authored works.
The implication is that legal rights depend on intelligence. I find that troubling.
magikmw@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
Statistical models are not intelligence, Artificial or otherwise, and should have no rights.
Muaddib@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
Bold words coming from a statistical model.
magikmw@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
If I could think I’d be so mad right now.
Muaddib@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
en.wikipedia.org/…/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness…
If cognition is one of the laws of nature, it seems to be written in the language of mathematics.
Your argument is either that maths can’t think (in which case you can’t think because you’re maths) or that maths we understand can’t think, which is, like, a really dumb argument. Obviously one day we’re going to find the mathematical formula for consciousness, and we probably won’t know it when we see it, because consciousness doesn’t appear on a microscope.