The whole point of the Ship of Theseus is that you never change the ship. You just change one part at a time until every part has been replaced. Is it still the same ship?
That’s what OOP was referencing, but it’s a kind of loose reference. I guess they’re assuming it’s a different ship?
There’s not supposed to be a solid answer. You’re just supposed to think about it.
Yeah, but the comparison translates poorly to software, since there is no way to “take” a whole ship, only to copy it. Whether you copy it directly or rewrite it, the material is the same, because you have the same information in the end. It would be closer to take the ship apart and rebuild it exactly the same using the same planks.
Now, if you ask the AI to re-write a software in a different language, or using different patterns, that would be something else. If it writes the open-source project exactly the same, byte by byte without the license, then it’s simply breaking the terms.
The whole point of the Ship of Theseus is that you never change the ship. You just change one part at a time until every part has been replaced. Is it still the same ship?
That’s what OOP was referencing, but it’s a kind of loose reference. I guess they’re assuming it’s a different ship?
There’s not supposed to be a solid answer. You’re just supposed to think about it.
Yeah, but the comparison translates poorly to software, since there is no way to “take” a whole ship, only to copy it. Whether you copy it directly or rewrite it, the material is the same, because you have the same information in the end. It would be closer to take the ship apart and rebuild it exactly the same using the same planks. Now, if you ask the AI to re-write a software in a different language, or using different patterns, that would be something else. If it writes the open-source project exactly the same, byte by byte without the license, then it’s simply breaking the terms.
Yeah, I wasn’t saying that the analogy was apt. Just explaining the (attempted) reference