On Sun, May 04, 2025 at 07:08:00PM +0200, Aigars Mahinovs wrote: > On Sun, 4 May 2025 at 17:30, Wouter Verhelst <[1]w...@uter.be> wrote: > > > Wikipedia definition is a layman's simplification. > It may be a simplification, but that in and of itself does not make > it > incorrect. > > I have specifically addressed this point with examples in my reply. > Copyright very clearly does not survive learning and then generation of > new solutions. In humans that is a given.
Indeed. > For software I would assume the equivalence, unless proven > differently. This is not a fact; this is your opinion. You base the rest of your argument on it, so I'll call it an axiom: something to accept in order for the rest of the argument to hold. The problem is, I disagree with your axiom. To me, software and humans are two very different things. We know how computers work; we can therefore reason what the output of a software program is going to be based on the input that you give it. Whether that program is a compiler or a trainer program for a deep learning model is just a detail in that context. One computer chip of a given model and stepping is 100% equivalent to another, and so any process that runs on one of these chips will produce the same output on another. The same is not true for human brains; we do not fully understand how they work, we cannot predict what the resulting experience of a given person is going to render based on the training that person has received, and therefore we cannot predict how a given person is going to write a particular piece of software. Different brains will result in different programming styles given the same training. In fact, I may write a solution to the same problem differently on two different days. An LLM will not do that; when given the same inputs, it will produce the same output (as long as we consider "the internal state of its randomizer" as part of its inputs). Given that I don't agree with your initial axiom, and given that the rest of your argument is based on that axiom, I'm not surprised that I didn't agree with your full argument. That is also why I did not see the need to reply to that part of your argumentation. -- w@uter.{be,co.za} wouter@{grep.be,fosdem.org,debian.org} I will have a Tin-Actinium-Potassium mixture, thanks.