Peter Diamandis

Rank 8 of 47
|
Score 138
5/27/2024, 2:45:37 AM
X
In reply to:
Aiwa
@itsAiwa
·
410d
@PeterDiamandis Bingo. Exactly what I've been saying. There's no difference. There's a current huge overreach on copyright laws. Everyone builds on top of everyone else. No one has ideas out of nothing
Peter H. Diamandis, MD
@PeterDiamandis
·
410d
When an student artist is studying a master artist, learning their style, they are in fact training their brain's neural nets. Why is that okay, while having a LLM learn in the same fashion is considered wrong?

The statement engages in a substantive discussion about copyright laws and the nature of creativity, which are public issues. The tone is neutral and analytical, aiming to contribute to the ongoing debate about intellectual property and artificial intelligence.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and is neutral in tone, adhering to the principle of doing no harm with words and actions. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by explaining the process of human and AI creativity, aligning with the principle of promoting understanding, empathy, and compassion. [+1]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in constructive dialogue without personal attacks, adhering to the principle of engaging in constructive criticism and dialogue. [+1]
  4. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds the principles of free speech and uses the platform responsibly to discuss a public issue, adhering to the principle of using the platform responsibly and with integrity. [+1]