Re: <nettime> FWD: The Copy Far "AI" license (fwd)

[Daniel Brandes via nettime-l <nettime-l@lists.nettime.org>]

The discourse around the environmental rights is about legal entities/artificial persons, not natural ones (at least German law distinguishes there), purely as means to enforce protection of biospheres or charismatic landmarks, not as an epistemological statement… 

Friedrich Kittler spoke of an 'lucid, discerning part of nature' in an Alexander Kluge interview. It’s an unclear passage, complacent with dark poetry. When Silicium patterns magically match mathematics, a hardcore materialist position could of course liken that to the evolution of neurology. You run into obvious (traditional humanistic) trouble when sheer capability of calculations is your only criterion constituting anthropic beings and the freedom that implies, it’s already a short definition of rationality. Without *Wille* the ~ computing entity ~ remains blind, void of direction and purpose. How should that constitute subjectivity? There’s no fundamental leap between your old Casio calculator and ChatGPT other than capacity and magnitude of dataset. None. Being so impressed in front of those stochastic parrots – i.e. evolved pocket calculators – seems to me like a very contemporary 'naive Turing realism' (perhaps due to lack of real interaction) that probably will wear off soon. 


> Am 02.10.2023 um 10:38 schrieb mp via nettime-l <nettime-l@lists.nettime.org>:
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/2/23 07:33, Christian Swertz via nettime-l wrote:
>> But I would really like to learn more about the idea that an AI might be free. I've heard this quite often, but never understood the concept. Can somebody help me?
>> 
> 
> It could possibly have to do with the concepts of the "earth rights movements", which seek to decenter the perception and legal treatment of "the environment" from the "white colonial gaze" where humans, starting with "the White Male", is on top and in the centre and most important, and where everyone and everything else is subordinate.
> 
> For instance:
> 
> "...Earth Law is the idea that ecosystems have the right to exist, thrive, and evolve—and that Nature should be able to defend its rights in court, just like people can.
> 
> Despite decades of environmental legislation, Earth’s health continues to decline. Because our current laws protect Nature only for the benefit of people and corporations, profit usually takes priority over Nature. Even when environmental issues are brought to court, people must prove that the environmental damage violates their own rights since the environment has no rights of its own...".
> 
> From https://www.earthlawcenter.org/
> 
> Interesting stuff in that work, chipping away at the liberal, jurisprudential foundation of the "western world order", but if that is what "freedoms of AIs" is about- having rightful status like rivers, woods, mountains etc. - then it seems to me that the idea of subjection is sensible: the entire technological dimension should be under conscious human control, maintaining it in service of humanity and the rest of the complex web of life in which we live.
> 
> Setting it free.... Well, it was tried and tested with fossil fuels and automobiles with at best "mixed success".
> 
> -- 
> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
> # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
> # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
> # more info: https://www.nettime.org
> # contact: nettime-l-owner@lists.nettime.org

-- 
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: https://www.nettime.org
# contact: nettime-l-owner@lists.nettime.org