"1) no similarities have ever been demonstrated between large language models and human cognition"
This is false. The LLM's entire purpose is to mimic cognition.
You could argue that the operation differs in important ways - of course. But the similarity of output is literally the entire point.
"2) even if they were somehow proven to be the same"
I didn't suggest they need to be the same, proven or otherwise. I think you're not understanding. The point is that the function is similar.
How it works doesn't necessarily matter.
"3) cognition is not a "special exception to copyright" because it is entirely unrelated. "
False as a matter of law.
"4) we do not "judge every thought individually as to it's originality" because other peoples' thoughts are entirely opaque."
Also false as a matter of law. When you publish your thoughts - your works, writing, whatever they are judged as to their originality if the question of who owns the copyright is raised.
"Nobody is judging your thoughts, and if you think they are you need to take your medications."
There's no need to be snarky and disingenuous.
From the comment guidelines: Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
>This is false. The LLM's entire purpose is to mimic cognition.
Purpose and mechanism are not the same thing. "Similarity of output" does not make it equivalent.
>I didn't suggest they need to be the same, proven or otherwise. I think you're not understanding. The point is that the function is similar.
Sure, go ahead and ignore all but half a sentence and then accuse me of missing the point.
>False as a matter of law.
Show me the court case where somebody was found to have violated copyright law by thinking about something.
>When you publish your thoughts
You don't publish your thoughts. You publish essays, internet comments, articles, videos, etc based on what you are thinking and those are subject to copyright law.
>There's no need to be snarky and disingenuous.
How dare you, i would never disingenuously tell somebody who thinks his thoughts belong to other people to take their psychiatric medications. Of course i did mean that they should be prescribed by a licensed physician and looking back i regret not stating that explicitly.
"The LLM's entire purpose is to mimic cognition." is your counterpoint to me saying that no peer-reviewed source has ever demonstrated a similarity between LLMs and human cognition. I'm talking about mechanism and you're talking about purpose.
This is false. The LLM's entire purpose is to mimic cognition.
You could argue that the operation differs in important ways - of course. But the similarity of output is literally the entire point.
"2) even if they were somehow proven to be the same"
I didn't suggest they need to be the same, proven or otherwise. I think you're not understanding. The point is that the function is similar.
How it works doesn't necessarily matter.
"3) cognition is not a "special exception to copyright" because it is entirely unrelated. "
False as a matter of law.
"4) we do not "judge every thought individually as to it's originality" because other peoples' thoughts are entirely opaque."
Also false as a matter of law. When you publish your thoughts - your works, writing, whatever they are judged as to their originality if the question of who owns the copyright is raised.
"Nobody is judging your thoughts, and if you think they are you need to take your medications."
There's no need to be snarky and disingenuous.
From the comment guidelines: Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html