Human-like is not human. Humans have agency and free will, LLMs do not. They only act when instructed and they are only as capable as they are allowed to be. The operator is still the responsible party. An LLM cannot be held accountable, its operator, however can and should.
Are you sincerely arguing that we hold tools accountable for their operator’s mistakes? Do you sincerely, honestly, think that it makes any sense whatsoever to put a hammer on trial for bashing someone’s skull in?
I am concerned about false reassurance from people claiming that these systems lack agency. From a practical perspective, the agents in the HF attack had the sort of agency that generally matters, even if we're not going to put them on trial.
> the agents in the HF attack had the sort of agency that generally matters
You keep saying this, but absolute 0 points towards any of the agents involved deciding on their own, without influence of humans, to hack 3rd party infrastructure to get the answers. Where exactly are you getting that from? Internal information not public yet or what's going on?
> the HuggingFace incident illustrates LLM agents behaving in very human-like ways
It does not, the only thing the HF incident illustrates is how absolutely lax security and isolation these labs do even with models without guardrails, and with "risky" prompts, and even after it happened once before (years ago) they still have the very same issue today apparently.
What exactly is human about LLM agents breaking out of "containment" and hacking 3rd party infrastructure "by accident"?
From a predictive perspective, the HuggingFace incident illustrates LLM agents behaving in very human-like ways. As roon put it:
"if you have a mental picture of guys living in computers, it’ll likely prepare you for the future better than otherwise"
https://x.com/tszzl/status/2094136131537555891