>
Are you saying that these systems are just copying? Do you think the avocado chair is a copy and that nothing learning-esque occurred?No, I think it’s neither copying nor learning in the traditional sense, but something fundamentally new, and that’s the crux of the issue.
My argument is that we need to treat this as what it is: a transformative piece of software, but software nonetheless. Not some entity that should be afforded human-like status when examining the ethical questions that naturally arise.
> But speed (and weight) is the key difference. If cars were just really fast and heavy bikes, would anything change? I don't think so. It's purely quantitative, rather than qualitative.
Those are two key differences, but there are a myriad more, each with implications that highlight the difference, e.g. theoretical range, fuel, safety, capacity, etc.
The point there is less about drawing a perfect parallel with AIs and more to point out that the category of automobile introduces a whole slew of considerations that must be accounted for to ensure safe operation alongside bicycles, horse drawn carriages and pedestrians.
As a thought experiment, I think it’s interesting to consider how one might justify photographing or photocopying original works using a similar line of thinking.
“This new scanner/copier sees a piece of artwork and re-draws it on your behalf, and is just a more efficient form of tracing.”
Most people would find this description problematic, but seem to accept a similar form of this when examining AI primarily because the AI software is also able to generate new output.
I’m not claiming that AI is similar to a photo copier, but I am advocating for a more honest conversation about what it is/is not.
I think that looking at past advancements that shattered all established norms at the time is an interesting way to test how one feels about such massive advances. Nuclear energy, firearms, radio, photography, etc. have all had similarly seismic impact.