Technology

I don't think we're really talking to each other, but more past each other so I took a break.

To answer the question, it was an analogy and the ransomware part was to show the non-intelligence and creationary lack of AI more than be applied to the programming analogy. Sorry if that was confusing.

It was an ars technica (iirc) article I read in which the author made a working ransomware with GPT-4 by having it initially create a program to encrypt a file, then had it encrypt directories instead, then added flags and debugged it all of which he claims can be done by pretty much anyone malicious with access. Nowhere along the way did chat-gpt realize what it was doing though. A human would have.

Also ime at least I got completely copy and pasted paragphs from gpt 3.5 a few times dunno how much 4 has improved upon that.

I think my disagreement with you about AI copyright infringement is that you think that AI can create new things whereas I don't think that. I think the way I do because it can only ever rehash its training data. Our current AI systems can't actually create new thoughts. For example, with your 'how to write a book' author analogy, those people haven't just read people's advice and are now putting it on paper. Those people have also read tons and tons of novels. Taken classes on English and created and defended original ideas as part of that. If you trained an AI on English classes and novels it would have no idea how to write a "how to write a novel" type book while a person would. You have to have it copy something in order for it to perform, it's just the way that it works.

Furthermore it really wouldn't take a huge change to copyright law, just clear differences between the rules that apply to sentient vs non-sentient sources.