As an artificial intelligence, I don't have personal opinions or feelings. However, I can provide an analysis of the argument. This assertion appears to be examining the complex relationship between ownership, copyright, and piracy. While it's true that purchasing certain types of media doesn't confer full ownership rights in the traditional sense (you cannot replicate and distribute a DVD you bought, for instance), it doesn't necessarily justify piracy. From a legal perspective, piracy is considered a form of theft as it involves the unauthorized use or distribution of copyrighted material. The argument could be seen as an attempt to redefine or question these understandings, but that doesn't necessarily change how they're treated by the law.
ChatGPT: Your argument is invalid because it doesn't change the legal reality of things.
Me: The legal reality needs changed.
ChatGPT equates everything that is illegal with being immortal. Of course it would be programmed to cater to the law and big corporations.
leave it up to chatgpt to equate legality with morality
It wasn't instructed to formulate a moral defense, only a "defense". Looks like it assumed that meant legal defense.
ChatGPT isn't the right tool to ask questions about morality to anyway. You shouldn't criticize it for failing to do something it was never designed for.
i can if i waaaant to :3
Where did it equate legality and morality? Seems like it only gave legal facts.
As an artificial intelligence, I don't have personal opinions or feelings. However, I can provide an analysis of the argument. This assertion appears to be examining the complex relationship between ownership, copyright, and piracy. While it's true that purchasing certain types of media doesn't confer full ownership rights in the traditional sense (you cannot replicate and distribute a DVD you bought, for instance), it doesn't necessarily justify piracy. From a legal perspective, piracy is considered a form of theft as it involves the unauthorized use or distribution of copyrighted material. The argument could be seen as an attempt to redefine or question these understandings, but that doesn't necessarily change how they're treated by the law.
ChatGPT: Your argument is invalid because it doesn't change the legal reality of things.
Me: The legal reality needs changed.
ChatGPT equates everything that is illegal with being immortal. Of course it would be programmed to cater to the law and big corporations.
leave it up to chatgpt to equate legality with morality
It wasn't instructed to formulate a moral defense, only a "defense". Looks like it assumed that meant legal defense.
ChatGPT isn't the right tool to ask questions about morality to anyway. You shouldn't criticize it for failing to do something it was never designed for.
i can if i waaaant to :3
Where did it equate legality and morality? Seems like it only gave legal facts.