The brain is also just a "complex math program". Since math is just the language we use to describe the world. I don't feel this argument has any weight at all.
Not to mention, if your brain starts outputting Microsoft copyright code, they're going to sue the shit out of you and win, so I'm not sure how that would help even so.
This is not a fact.
The physics that gives rise to the brain is pretty much known. We can model all the protons, electrons and photons incredibly accurately. It's an extraordinary claim you say the brain doesn't function according to these known mechanisms.
If all you have is a hammer...
The nature of consciousness is an open question. We don't know whether the brain is equivalent to a Turing machine.
Why? Burden of proof is on you.
We can't even accurately model a receptor protein on a cell or the binding of its ligands, nor can we accurately simulate a single neuron.
This is one of those hard problems in computing and medicine. It is very much an open question about how or if we can model complex biology accurately like that.
This is a belief about our ability to construct models, not a fact. Models are leaky abstractions, by nature. Models using models are exponentially leaky.
> I didn't say we can simulate it.
Mathematics (at large) is descriptive. We describe matter mathematically, as it's convenient to make predictions with a shared modeling of the world, but the quantum of matter is not an equation. f() at any scale of complexity, does not transmute.
Does the brain fall in into the category of “understood natural phenomenon”? Is it “understood”? What does “understood” mean in this context?
Personally I believe it’s likely that the brain can essentially be reduced to a computation, but we have no proof of that.
You are saying "If we know how something works, we can explain how it works using math."
But we know almost nothing about how the brain works.
> The physics that gives rise to the brain is pretty much known.
...no it is not! No physicist would describe any physical phenomenon as being "pretty much known". Let alone cognition. We don't even have a complete atomic model.
You have it reversed. Math is a language tool to describe things, in a limited fashion (our current modeling). One is physical matter (even if it's antimatter). If you believe that there will be a language that can describe anything, it still doesn't manifest matter by speaking that language or describing it...unless you're into magic or spirits or whatever.
This disconnect has nothing to do with how well we do or do not understand physical phenomena. I think what the OP meant to say (and probably you support) is how the "mind" or how we think, can be described with mathematical models. Maybe one day we will have a full understanding, but we're not there yet and not currently in a way that is legally compelling.
Source?
In this answer, you're completely ignoring the massive fact that we cannot create a human brain. Having mathematical models about particles does not mean we have "solved" the brain. Unless you're also believe that these LLMs are actually behaving just like human brains, in that have consciousness, they have logic, they dream, they have nightmares, they produce emotions such as fear, love, anger, that they grow and change over time, that they controls body, your lungs, heart, etc...
You see my point, right? Surely you see that the statement 'The brain is also just a "complex math program"' is at best extremely over-simplistic.
There is a gaping chasm between observing known physics, and saying it is the cause of consciousness.
You should read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind
[ Edit: better link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness ]
Citation needed. I've never plagiarised on purpose, sure, but I've caught myself at least several dozen times well after the act.
As far as “citation needed”, humans are being convicted for plagiarism, so it is generally assumed that they are able to tell and hence can be held responsible for it.
Responsibility or liability is really the crux here. As long as AIs can’t be made liable for their actions (output) like humans or legal entities can, instead the AI operators must be held accountable, and it’s arguably their responsibility to take all practical measures to prevent their AIs from plagiarizing, or from otherwise violating license terms.