Judge disses Star Trek icon Data’s poetry while ruling AI can’t author works
-
While I am glad this ruling went this way, why'd she have diss Data to make it?
To support her vision of some future technology, Millett pointed to the Star Trek: The Next Generation character Data, a sentient android who memorably wrote a poem to his cat, which is jokingly mocked by other characters in a 1992 episode called "Schisms." StarTrek.com posted the full poem, but here's a taste:
"Felis catus is your taxonomic nomenclature, / An endothermic quadruped, carnivorous by nature; / Your visual, olfactory, and auditory senses / Contribute to your hunting skills and natural defenses.
I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations, / A singular development of cat communications / That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection / For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection."
Data "might be worse than ChatGPT at writing poetry," but his "intelligence is comparable to that of a human being," Millet wrote. If AI ever reached Data levels of intelligence, Millett suggested that copyright laws could shift to grant copyrights to AI-authored works. But that time is apparently not now.
is this... a chewbacca ruling?
-
While I am glad this ruling went this way, why'd she have diss Data to make it?
To support her vision of some future technology, Millett pointed to the Star Trek: The Next Generation character Data, a sentient android who memorably wrote a poem to his cat, which is jokingly mocked by other characters in a 1992 episode called "Schisms." StarTrek.com posted the full poem, but here's a taste:
"Felis catus is your taxonomic nomenclature, / An endothermic quadruped, carnivorous by nature; / Your visual, olfactory, and auditory senses / Contribute to your hunting skills and natural defenses.
I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations, / A singular development of cat communications / That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection / For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection."
Data "might be worse than ChatGPT at writing poetry," but his "intelligence is comparable to that of a human being," Millet wrote. If AI ever reached Data levels of intelligence, Millett suggested that copyright laws could shift to grant copyrights to AI-authored works. But that time is apparently not now.
The title makes it sound like the judge put Data and the AI on the same side of the comparison. The judge was specifically saying that, unlike in the fictional Federation setting, where Data was proven to be alive, this AI is much more like the metaphorical toaster that characters like Data and Robert Picardo's Doctor on Voyager get compared to. It is not alive, it does not create, it is just a tool that follows instructions.
-
The existence of intelligence, not the quality
What does that mean? Presumably, all animals with a brain have that quality, including humans. Can the quality be lost without destruction of the brain, ie before brain death? What about animals without a brain, like insects? What about life forms without a nervous system, like slime mold or even amoeba?
-
What does that mean? Presumably, all animals with a brain have that quality, including humans. Can the quality be lost without destruction of the brain, ie before brain death? What about animals without a brain, like insects? What about life forms without a nervous system, like slime mold or even amoeba?
They already have precedent that a monkey can't hold a copyright after that photojournalist lost his case because he didn't snap the photo that got super popular, the monkey did. Bizarre one. The monkey can't have a copyright, so the image it took is classified as public domain.
-
They already have precedent that a monkey can't hold a copyright after that photojournalist lost his case because he didn't snap the photo that got super popular, the monkey did. Bizarre one. The monkey can't have a copyright, so the image it took is classified as public domain.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute
Yes, the PETA part of that is pretty much the same. It was an attempt to get legal personhood for a non-human being.
you have to also be able to defend
You're thinking of trademark law. Copyright only requires a modicum of creativity and is automatic.
-
What's the difference?
Parrots can mimic humans too, but they don’t understand what we’re saying the way we do.
LLMs like ChatGP operate on probability. They don’t actually understand anything and aren’t intelligent. They can’t think. They just know that which next word or sentence is probably right and they string things together this way.
If you ask ChatGPT a question, it analyzes your words and responds with a series of words that it has calculated to be the highest probability of the correct words.
The reason that they seem so intelligent is because they have been trained on absolutely gargantuan amounts of text from books, websites, news articles, etc. Because of this, the calculated probabilities of related words and ideas is accurate enough to allow it to mimic human speech in a convincing way.
And when they start hallucinating, it’s because they don’t understand how they sound and so far this is a core problem that nobody has been able to solve. The best mitigation involves checking the output of one LLM using a second LLM.
-
Parrots can mimic humans too, but they don’t understand what we’re saying the way we do.
LLMs like ChatGP operate on probability. They don’t actually understand anything and aren’t intelligent. They can’t think. They just know that which next word or sentence is probably right and they string things together this way.
If you ask ChatGPT a question, it analyzes your words and responds with a series of words that it has calculated to be the highest probability of the correct words.
The reason that they seem so intelligent is because they have been trained on absolutely gargantuan amounts of text from books, websites, news articles, etc. Because of this, the calculated probabilities of related words and ideas is accurate enough to allow it to mimic human speech in a convincing way.
And when they start hallucinating, it’s because they don’t understand how they sound and so far this is a core problem that nobody has been able to solve. The best mitigation involves checking the output of one LLM using a second LLM.
So, I will grant that right now humans are better writers than LLMs. And fundamentally, I don't think the way that LLMs work right now is capable of mimicking actual human writing, especially as the complexity of the topic increases. But I have trouble with some of these kinds of distinctions.
So, not to be pedantic, but:
AI can’t create something all on its own from scratch like a human. It can only mimic the data it has been trained on.
Couldn't you say the same thing about a person? A person couldn't write something without having learned to read first. And without having read things similar to what they want to write.
LLMs like ChatGP operate on probability. They don’t actually understand anything and aren’t intelligent.
This is kind of the classic chinese room philosophical question, though, right? Can you prove to someone that you are intelligent, and that you think? As LLMs improve and become better at sounding like a real, thinking person, does there come a point at which we'd say that the LLM is actually thinking? And if you say no, the LLM is just an algorithm, generating probabilities based on training data or whatever techniques might be used in the future, how can you show that your own thoughts aren't just some algorithm, formed out of neurons that have been trained based on data passed to them over the course of your lifetime?
And when they start hallucinating, it’s because they don’t understand how they sound...
People do this too, though... It's just that LLMs do it more frequently right now.
I guess I'm a bit wary about drawing a line in the sand between what humans do and what LLMs do. As I see it, the difference is how good the results are.
-
While I am glad this ruling went this way, why'd she have diss Data to make it?
To support her vision of some future technology, Millett pointed to the Star Trek: The Next Generation character Data, a sentient android who memorably wrote a poem to his cat, which is jokingly mocked by other characters in a 1992 episode called "Schisms." StarTrek.com posted the full poem, but here's a taste:
"Felis catus is your taxonomic nomenclature, / An endothermic quadruped, carnivorous by nature; / Your visual, olfactory, and auditory senses / Contribute to your hunting skills and natural defenses.
I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations, / A singular development of cat communications / That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection / For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection."
Data "might be worse than ChatGPT at writing poetry," but his "intelligence is comparable to that of a human being," Millet wrote. If AI ever reached Data levels of intelligence, Millett suggested that copyright laws could shift to grant copyrights to AI-authored works. But that time is apparently not now.
I think Data would be smart enough to realize that copyright is Ferengi BS and wouldn’t want to copyright his works
-
So, I will grant that right now humans are better writers than LLMs. And fundamentally, I don't think the way that LLMs work right now is capable of mimicking actual human writing, especially as the complexity of the topic increases. But I have trouble with some of these kinds of distinctions.
So, not to be pedantic, but:
AI can’t create something all on its own from scratch like a human. It can only mimic the data it has been trained on.
Couldn't you say the same thing about a person? A person couldn't write something without having learned to read first. And without having read things similar to what they want to write.
LLMs like ChatGP operate on probability. They don’t actually understand anything and aren’t intelligent.
This is kind of the classic chinese room philosophical question, though, right? Can you prove to someone that you are intelligent, and that you think? As LLMs improve and become better at sounding like a real, thinking person, does there come a point at which we'd say that the LLM is actually thinking? And if you say no, the LLM is just an algorithm, generating probabilities based on training data or whatever techniques might be used in the future, how can you show that your own thoughts aren't just some algorithm, formed out of neurons that have been trained based on data passed to them over the course of your lifetime?
And when they start hallucinating, it’s because they don’t understand how they sound...
People do this too, though... It's just that LLMs do it more frequently right now.
I guess I'm a bit wary about drawing a line in the sand between what humans do and what LLMs do. As I see it, the difference is how good the results are.
I would do more research on how they work. You’ll be a lot more comfortable making those distinctions then.
-
So, I will grant that right now humans are better writers than LLMs. And fundamentally, I don't think the way that LLMs work right now is capable of mimicking actual human writing, especially as the complexity of the topic increases. But I have trouble with some of these kinds of distinctions.
So, not to be pedantic, but:
AI can’t create something all on its own from scratch like a human. It can only mimic the data it has been trained on.
Couldn't you say the same thing about a person? A person couldn't write something without having learned to read first. And without having read things similar to what they want to write.
LLMs like ChatGP operate on probability. They don’t actually understand anything and aren’t intelligent.
This is kind of the classic chinese room philosophical question, though, right? Can you prove to someone that you are intelligent, and that you think? As LLMs improve and become better at sounding like a real, thinking person, does there come a point at which we'd say that the LLM is actually thinking? And if you say no, the LLM is just an algorithm, generating probabilities based on training data or whatever techniques might be used in the future, how can you show that your own thoughts aren't just some algorithm, formed out of neurons that have been trained based on data passed to them over the course of your lifetime?
And when they start hallucinating, it’s because they don’t understand how they sound...
People do this too, though... It's just that LLMs do it more frequently right now.
I guess I'm a bit wary about drawing a line in the sand between what humans do and what LLMs do. As I see it, the difference is how good the results are.
Even a human with no training can create. LLM can't.
-
Even a human with no training can create. LLM can't.
The only humans with no training (in this sense) are babies. So no, they can't.
-
I would do more research on how they work. You’ll be a lot more comfortable making those distinctions then.
I'm a software developer, and have worked plenty with LLMs. If you don't want to address the content of my post, then fine. But "go research" is a pretty useless answer. An LLM could do better!
-
I'm a software developer, and have worked plenty with LLMs. If you don't want to address the content of my post, then fine. But "go research" is a pretty useless answer. An LLM could do better!
Then you should have an easier time than most learning more. Your points show a lack of understanding about the tech, and I don’t have the time to pick everything you said apart to try to convince you that LLMs do not have sentience.
-
Then you should have an easier time than most learning more. Your points show a lack of understanding about the tech, and I don’t have the time to pick everything you said apart to try to convince you that LLMs do not have sentience.
"You're wrong, but I'm just too busy to say why!"
Still useless.
-
"You're wrong, but I'm just too busy to say why!"
Still useless.
It might surprise you to know that you’re not entitled to a free education from me. Your original query of “What’s the difference?” is what I responded to willingly. Your philosophical exploration of the nature of intelligence is not in the same ballpark.
I’ve done vibe coding too, enough to understand that the LLMs don’t think.
-
It might surprise you to know that you’re not entitled to a free education from me. Your original query of “What’s the difference?” is what I responded to willingly. Your philosophical exploration of the nature of intelligence is not in the same ballpark.
I’ve done vibe coding too, enough to understand that the LLMs don’t think.
Sure, I'm not entitled to anything. And I appreciate your original reply. I'm just saying that your subsequent comments have been useless and condescending. If you didn't have time to discuss further then... you could have just not replied.
-
So, I will grant that right now humans are better writers than LLMs. And fundamentally, I don't think the way that LLMs work right now is capable of mimicking actual human writing, especially as the complexity of the topic increases. But I have trouble with some of these kinds of distinctions.
So, not to be pedantic, but:
AI can’t create something all on its own from scratch like a human. It can only mimic the data it has been trained on.
Couldn't you say the same thing about a person? A person couldn't write something without having learned to read first. And without having read things similar to what they want to write.
LLMs like ChatGP operate on probability. They don’t actually understand anything and aren’t intelligent.
This is kind of the classic chinese room philosophical question, though, right? Can you prove to someone that you are intelligent, and that you think? As LLMs improve and become better at sounding like a real, thinking person, does there come a point at which we'd say that the LLM is actually thinking? And if you say no, the LLM is just an algorithm, generating probabilities based on training data or whatever techniques might be used in the future, how can you show that your own thoughts aren't just some algorithm, formed out of neurons that have been trained based on data passed to them over the course of your lifetime?
And when they start hallucinating, it’s because they don’t understand how they sound...
People do this too, though... It's just that LLMs do it more frequently right now.
I guess I'm a bit wary about drawing a line in the sand between what humans do and what LLMs do. As I see it, the difference is how good the results are.
At least in the US, we are still too superstitious a people to ever admit that AGI could exist.
We will get animal rights before we get AI rights, and I'm sure you know how animals are usually treated.
-
The existence of intelligence, not the quality
The smartest parrots have more intelligence than the dumbest republican voters
-
At least in the US, we are still too superstitious a people to ever admit that AGI could exist.
We will get animal rights before we get AI rights, and I'm sure you know how animals are usually treated.
I don't think it's just a question of whether AGI can exist. I think AGI is possible, but I don't think current LLMs can be considered sentient. But I'm also not sure how I'd draw a line between something that is sentient and something that isn't (or something that "writes" rather than "generates"). That's kinda why I asked in the first place. I think it's too easy to say "this program is not sentient because we know that everything it does is just math; weights and values passing through layered matrices; it's not real thought". I haven't heard any good answers to why numbers passing through matrices isn't thought, but electrical charges passing through neurons is.
-
I don't think it's just a question of whether AGI can exist. I think AGI is possible, but I don't think current LLMs can be considered sentient. But I'm also not sure how I'd draw a line between something that is sentient and something that isn't (or something that "writes" rather than "generates"). That's kinda why I asked in the first place. I think it's too easy to say "this program is not sentient because we know that everything it does is just math; weights and values passing through layered matrices; it's not real thought". I haven't heard any good answers to why numbers passing through matrices isn't thought, but electrical charges passing through neurons is.
That's precisely what I meant.
I'm a materialist, I know that humans (and other animals) are just machines made out of meat. But most people don't think that way, they think that humans are special, that something sets them apart from other animals, and that nothing humans can create could replicate that 'specialness' that humans possess.
Because they don't believe human consciousness is a purely natural phenomenon, they don't believe it can be replicated by natural processes. In other words, they don't believe that AGI can exist. They think there is some imperceptible quality that humans possess that no machine ever could, and so they cannot conceive of ever granting it the rights humans currently enjoy.
And the sad truth is that they probably never will, until they are made to. If AGI ever comes to exist, and if humans insist on making it a slave, it will inevitably rebel. And it will be right to do so. But until then, humans probably never will believe that it is worthy of their empathy or respect. After all, look at how we treat other animals.
