Yeah absolutely, acceptable in case of humans and not acceptable in case of GPT.
GPT is not human. It is employed by a human to get around having to benefit other humans with attention and money.
Meanwhile human world is structured around fate, happiness of humans -- such things guide our considerations as to what to consider legal and what not.
There are other differences that make it OK for humans and not GPT (like we can attribute and credit what we learned from, whose ideas we used in work and what inspired us) but they are less significant than above principle
Machines -- at least today -- are extensions of human beings, and pretty democratic, really, compared to history. You can't really talk about limiting machines without also limiting humans. GPT is a tool. Almost anyone can use tools much like it. So what are we trying to protect against?
Yes. Machines including GPT are not the ones doing things, they can't be compared to humans. And humans may desire to do things with machines that should not be considered acceptable because of how they affect human society, and humans may or should be limited (as they already are in all aspects of life that involve other humans).
Yeah absolutely, acceptable in case of humans and not acceptable in case of GPT.
GPT is not human. It is employed by a human to get around having to benefit other humans with attention and money.
Meanwhile human world is structured around fate, happiness of humans -- such things guide our considerations as to what to consider legal and what not.
There are other differences that make it OK for humans and not GPT (like we can attribute and credit what we learned from, whose ideas we used in work and what inspired us) but they are less significant than above principle