• cactusfacecomics@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    2 days ago

    Seems reasonable to me. If you’re using AI then you should be required to own up to it. If you’re too embarrassed to own up to it, then maybe you shouldn’t be using it.

    • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’m stoked to see the legal definition of “AI”. I’m sure the lawyers and costumed clowns will really clear it all up.

      • MajorasTerribleFate@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        Prosecution: “Your Honor, the definition of artificial is ‘made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally,’ and as all human beings are themselves produced by human beings, we are definitionally artificial. Therefore, the actions of an intelligent human are inherently AI.”

        Defense: “The defense does not argue this point, as such. However, our client, FOX News, could not be said to be exhibiting ‘intelligence.’ Artificial they may be, but AI they are clearly not. We rest our case.”

      • eldebryn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        IMO if your “A*” style algorithm is used for chatbot or any kind of user interaction or content generation, it should still be explicitly declared.

        That being said, there is some nuance here about A) use of Copyrighted material and B) Non-deterministic behaviour. Neither of which is (usually) a concern in more classical non-DL approaches to AI solutions.