If someone generates a ten thousand word slop essay with AI, do I have a moral obligation to critique its reasoning step by step instead of merely pointing out its origin?
If I do, it just so happens I have a ten thousand word rebuttal for you…
Are you religious? If not, you should assume that your cognition is a product of your body, a magnificent machine.
I don't think LLMs are sapient, but your argument implies that creativity is something unique to humans and therefore no machine can ever have it. If the human body IS a machine, this is a contradiction.
Now, there's a very reasonable argument to be made concerning the purpose of copyright law, but "machines can't be creative" isn't it.
Creativity is not unique to humans, but legal rights to protect creativity is unique to humans (or human-represented organizations). Humans are always special case in law.
Selling human livers and selling cow livers are never treated the same in terms of legality. Even the difference between your liver and that of a cow is much, much smaller than the difference between your brain and Stable Diffusion. I'm sure there isn't single biochemical reaction that is unique to humans.
Converting a raw 8k video down to 1080p is a full of creative solutions and its perfectly fine to see it as the machine doing some form of creativity when optimizing performance and file size. In similar way, compilers are marvelous and in many cases ingeniously when building and compiling binaries from source code.
It is however general agreed on those do not create independent original works. At the most generous interpretation they get defined as derivatives, and at the more common interpretation they are plain copies. The creativity is also usually not given to the machine, but those who built the machine. Even if the programmer is unable to predict all outcomes of creative written code, a unpredictable outcome is still attributed to the programmer.
It was ruled that our Copyright Law does require that a Human create the work, and that only a Human can hold copyright. The monkey was not given copyright over the image it took.
Monkeys obviously can be creative. However, our law has decided that human creativity is protected by copyright, and human creativity is special within the law. I don't see any contradictions or arguments about sapience that are relevant here.
Time to invent a type of plastic that's poisonous to these bacteria!
> Is it harmful to humans?
> Not at all! You can definitely trust that my company has studied this in depth. I'm sure it isn't going to make it into everyone's bloodstreams before we learn it's actually terrible.
This seems like the time to mention my unreleased board/video game, Star Gambit!
It's a turn-based abstract space fleet battle coming to your browser in 2026. It's already playable over the internet w/ time controls and ratings. If that interests you, join the discord for updates and playtest invites!
Dart/Flutter, custom engine. I've been very satisfied with it; does everything I need for a 2d game. Once it can natively use shaders/GPU on web it'll be perfect.
You're right, Bluesky moderation is centralized. Unless content is served p2p, some moderation has to be centralized. At the end of the day, there's a server serving content and that server operator is legally obligated to remove illegal material.
Hopefully, atproto + community will provide alternatives for moderation services. Work is being done on this, we'll see what we end up getting.
I feel that a competitive ecosystem of moderation services is probably the best answer we can hope for to that inherently messy problem.
That's what I was thinking -- eventually he'll stop paying for those domains and they'll go up for sale, and a domain taster may find that they are still active enough to use for real phishing.
I think it's really that highly motivated individuals will power through garbage UX that regular users won't.
Upsides like decentralization are abstract, UX is concrete. You need to get the UX right to give your real benefits a chance to shine.
This is the conclusion of a reply that focused entirely on critiquing OP's style/AI use instead of their reasoning? Ironic.
reply