this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2025
244 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

67050 readers
5073 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
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
244
Judge disses Star Trek icon Data’s poetry while ruling AI can’t author works (arstechnica.com)
submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
78 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
[–] [email protected] 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Why wouldn’t people do this simply for the benefit of humanity?

Because the good of humanity doesn't heat the house or put dinner on the table. Never has and never will. If you were a human, you'd have learned that from experience.

What’s with the disgusting eugenics? Just expropriate their wealth.

Some of that is exaggeration for comedic effect. "Okay, thanos snap every rich person everywhere is gone, we've solved greed. Now what?" But also...have we ever tried exterminating the rich? I think I've got a hypothesis here worth testing.

Right, so let’s distribute the burden of this labour

Who gets to make the decisions as to how?

Again, for the benefit of humanity and let’s distribute the burden.

Well now we're getting into some Robert Heinlein. Service Guarantees Citizenship! Would you like to know more?

I believe he once backed down a little bit on the requirement for military service, in favor of civil service in general. And I can kinda get behind that. You want to have a say in how society is run? Go spend 6 years as a mailman or a middle school janitor. Go be an NTSB accident investigator or one of those folks working in the USDA's kitchens testing canning recipes for safety. Those are the folks who should be running the show.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Because the good of humanity doesn't heat the house or put dinner on the table. Never has and never will. If you were a human, you'd have learned that from experience.

I don't know man, money doesn't heat my home or grow food. It's the skilled maintenance worker who fixes the central heating, the farmers growing my food and the logistics personnel ensuring it ends up on the supermarket shelves. It's just good people doing the work that needs doing, I don't think it's a given that anyone needs monetary compensation for that.

Who gets to make the decisions as to how?

This is why we invented democracies.

Those are the folks who should be running the show.

Haha, hell yeah! Just imagine decision makers having actual experience doing useful labour, I imagine things would turn out better indeed! :)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 14 hours ago

I don’t think it’s a given that anyone needs monetary compensation for that.

Stop paying them and find out.