• @teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    311 months ago

    If the person then makes money off it: yes.

    Every idea you’ve ever profited from was inspired by something you saw in the past. That’s my point. There are no ideas that exist entirely within a vacuum, they all stem from something else, we just draw a line arbitrarily and say “this idea is too much like that other idea”. But if you combine 3 other ideas into something that is sufficiently non-obvious (which is entirely relative) then we call it “novel” and “original”.

    I think the line should probably be, either it’s a tool and you need to license any work it references, OR it’s conscious, has rights, gets paid, and is a person. I think most tech companies would much rather stay in the former camp, not having to answer any ethical dilemmas if they don’t have to. But on the other hand, the first company to make something that people consider actually “conscious” will make history.

    You are comparing a computer program to a human. Which… is weird.

    Sounds like you have about 100 years of philosophical discussion, AI research, and scifi to catch up on 😄.

    • @Rakn@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      511 months ago

      It feels like you are making a computer program out to be more than it actually is right now. At the same time this all isn’t about what that program is doing. It’s about how it was built.