Comment by staticman2

>That's an extremely uncharitable and aggressive take, especially after not bothering to understand at all what I said.

To be clear, my intent wasn't to say you were the one being performative and disingenuous. I was referring to the sort of person you were debating against, the one who thinks every legal issue involving A.I. can be settled by typing "humans are allowed to do it."

Since I replied to you, I can see how what I wrote was confusing. My apologies.

The parent you replied to claimed LLMs are using "mechanism similar enough to what humans do and what humans do is fine."

Parent probably doesn't want his or her brain shredded like an old hard drive despite claiming similar mechanisms whenever it is convinient.

I'm arguing nobody actually believes there are "similar mechanisms" between machines and humans in their revealed preferences in day to day life.

>There's no law limiting a human's top (running) speed but you have speed limits for cars. Maybe you're legally allowed to own a semi-automatic weapon but not an automatic one.

I don't believe this analogy works. If we're talking about transmitting the text of Harry Potter, I believe it would already be illegal for a single human to type it on demand as a service.

If we are talking about remembering the text of Harry Potter but not reciting it on demand, that's not illegal for a human because copyright doesn't govern human memories.