It's no different than humans taking inspiration from IP and copyrighted works in their own creative endeavors. Imagine if programmers were unable to learn from open source. Or artists were unable to mimic styles and storylines. Musicians can't riff on things that others created.

▲

snarfy 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It is different. The scale makes it different. It's different when it is all copyrighted works and IP. It's different when you solve Navier-Stokes by taking "inspiration" from a researcher's private work.

▲

devsda 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If it's "learning" is to be seen in the same context as a human, then the punishment/ repercussion for hacking and causing real harm should also be similar to what a human might recieve.

It cannot opportunistically morph between a human for benefits and a machine for liability.

	▲	ben_w 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> It cannot opportunistically morph between a human for benefits and a machine for liability. Indeed. Though here it would be morphing between human and machine even just for pure liability, which is even worse. We have no way to tell if a machine has an experience (in general and not only) when being positively or negatively rewarded for what it produces; even if we assume it does, we have no way to tell if punishments are experienced like mild scolding (and rewards like mild praise), or if the punishments feel like being burned to death at the stake (while rewards feel like a religious experience combined with an orgasm). We are just beginning to scratch the surface of what these kinds of question even look like in mechanistic terms; all philosophical discussions before it about p-zombies and the Chinese room and so on, they are all no more useful than any other non-expert armchair experts discussing things. Even the current research, such as it is, is probably only at the level analogous to humoral theory when we want something at the level of germ theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humorism