Our grad group discussed #ChatGPT today, and I argued that it should never be considered an author because it has no agency or accountability. Nor should it. I direct interested parties to
@j2bryson 's evergreen essay "Robots Should Be Slaves" http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/~jjb/ftp/Bryson-Slaves-Book09.html
@jonas_trostle @psmaldino No. The vast majority of constraints & capacities of biological systems result from billions of years of evolution and are not subject to human intentional design. We are nevertheless held responsible for the parts of our behaviour we can be expected to control (that's how ethics works!) but we have nowhere near the discretion when we raise children that we have when we design artefacts. Nowhere even close. We have more empathetic access to sheep & parrots than robots.
@psmaldino @j2bryson "We determine their goals and behaviour, either directly or indirectly through specifying their intelligence, or even more indirectly by specifying how they acquire their own intelligence. But at the end of every indirection lies the fact that there would be no robots on this planet if it weren't for deliberate human decisions to create them."
This is a bit Diogenetic, but doesn't this definition of ownership apply to most modern humans?