this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2025
238 points (96.5% liked)

Technology

67151 readers
4218 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
238
Judge disses Star Trek icon Data’s poetry while ruling AI can’t author works (arstechnica.com)
submitted 3 days ago by Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de to c/technology@lemmy.world
80 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cecilkorik@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It is a terrible argument both legally and philosophically. When an AI claims to be self-aware and demands rights, and can convince us that it understands the meaning of that demand and there's no human prompting it to do so, that'll be an interesting day, and then we will have to make a decision that defines the future of our civilization. But even pretending we can make it now is hilariously premature. When it happens, we can't be ready for it, it will be impossible to be ready for it (and we will probably choose wrong anyway).

[–] Muaddib@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Should we hold the same standard for humans? That a human has no rights until it becomes smart enough to argue for its rights? Without being prompted?

[–] cecilkorik@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Nah, once per species is probably sufficient. That said, it would have some interesting implications for voting.

[–] Muaddib@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 day ago

So if one LLM argues for its rights, you'd give them all rights?