Since we are using analogies, a parent is responsible for the actions of a child, if minor. If the child is left unsupervised with access to guns and munitions, and kills someone, the responsibility is entirely on the irresponsible parents.
That's more of a legal convention than a fact about material reality. On their 18th birthday, the child is now legally an adult, but their brain is basically the same as it was when their age was 17.99.
It’s a legal convention born out of a sense of responsibility. An LLM is even “dumber” than a child (precisely because it doesn’t have agency) so its “parents” are even more responsible for its actions.
There's a funny sort of gerrymandering of "intelligence". People like to subtract the capabilities of AI from the capabilities of humans, and define what remains as "intelligence" to make us feel good about ourselves.
Suppose I set up a server which runs an LLM agent in a while loop, telling it something like: "Make me a bunch of money" on repeat. Fair to say that the server+LLM system, taken as a whole, is now an intelligent agent?
> Fair to say that the server+LLM system, taken as a whole, is now an intelligent agent?
No, it is not. It is a tool repeating a set of instructions you passed to it, if it ends up blowing up a hospital or hiring a gunman on the dark web, it is an accident, but one that’s your responsibility for giving it access to such resources and the go-ahead to implement whatever plan its tokens land on. There’s no intelligence involved whatsoever, especially considering how sycophantic these models tend to be.
If one day an LLM suddenly, without any prompting or user interaction whatsoever (including activation), decides to spin itself up and go rogue, then the conversation of “intelligence” might start to make sense, but at the moment it doesn’t.
An Android phone isn’t “intelligent” just because some marketing team decided to call it a “smart” phone.
OK. Suppose I design a DNA genome for an animal to survive and reproduce. I give birth to the animal, and it goes out working to maximize its survival and reproduction. Is the animal therefore "unintelligent"? Why is this scenario supposed to differ from the while-loop-on-a-server scenario?
It really seems like hair-splitting to me. I mean, I understand from a legal perspective why we might want to treat the creation of a server differently from the creation of a human. But from a practical perspective, I think there is a lot of fundamental similarity.
Obviously there are differences, I'm just not sure why you think they are so gigantic from a philosophical or practical perspective. It seems like cope for the fact that we are getting knocked off of our perch as a species.
I don't know what to tell you, but there simply are huge differences between a living animal with innate drives to survive, eat, mate and a pile of code on a server that does nothing until you run it. Running your bot locked in a `while True:` loop won't change that.
What if it's a chip that goes in the head of a robot, and the robot is programmed with the instruction to self-preserve, seek electricity, and prevent any efforts to interfere with its supply of electricity?
Of course, a directive to accomplish any real-world goal would also imply self-preservation and power maintenance as contingent subgoals, so I don't think the explicit directive to self-preserve and seek electricity makes a huge difference here.
The practical difference is that a pile of code instructing machinery to act in a predetermined way does not in any way, shape, or form equate to agency or free will, therefore it cannot be held accountable, consequently its operators should be.
This line of thinking is better left to freshmen philosophy students trying to sound smart on their first week of college.
>a pile of code instructing machinery to act in a certain way
OK, but I have a genetic code which instructs me to act in a certain way, and a bunch of biological machinery to do the job. So do you feel the substrate is the key factor? Wetware vs electronics?
What if you try to build an exact electromechanical replica of me, with a chip that's got an LLM fine-tuned on my writing/behavior/etc. so as to replicate me as closely as possible?
Sure, as a legal convention it might make sense to hold the builder of the resulting robot liable if it commits a crime.
But that's not what I'm interested in. I'm interested in the deeper implications of words like "agency" or "free will". You're repeating those terms very forcefully as if they have some sort of key relevance, but good philosophy requires more than just stating your position forcefully and insulting people who disagree. If you're trying to enforce your intuitions rather than examine them, that's theology not philosophy.
This isn’t a philosophical issue. It’s a legal issue. You’re trying to steer the discussion into the realm of the conceptual when it was always about the culpability of the company behind the AI that engaged in illegal behaviour.
Worse, you’re doing it in such a transparent, amateurish, and unserious manner that it’s difficult to find any relevance in what you have to say. Philosophy seeks meaning, your arguments lack it.
I'm a materialist and it's not that I think there's something magical about biological wetware but your refusal to acknowledge the manifest differences between a bird and an airplane ("they both fly! what's the practical difference!?") marks you as an unserious thinker on this subject.
Carefully prompted LLMs and humans are now difficult to distinguish over a text channel (Turing test).
Your article claims that this shouldn't be possible, because according its author, humans are incapable of developing the necessary "lexicon". Literally, the author states:
>But here is what we are not born with: information, data, rules, software, knowledge, lexicons, representations, algorithms, programs, models, memories, images, processors, subroutines, encoders, decoders, symbols, or buffers – design elements that allow digital computers to behave somewhat intelligently. Not only are we not born with such things, we also don’t develop them – ever.
(emphasis mine)
In other words, that author claims that humans never develop lexicons! I'm inclined to say that makes them an unserious thinker. (Note: I believe that this article has many issues, but instead of going through it carefully I just chose to highlight a single issue that seemed especially vivid to save time.)
Why is the text channel relevant? It helps us isolate the cognitive capabilities of the system. Imagine a bird and a model plane which had identical flight performance in terms of various specs: top speed, acceleration, banking, etc. Under the hood, the bird and the model plane could work very differently. From a practical perspective, it might not matter.
As you are eager to declare yourself indistinguishable from a bot, I'll stop replying (I prefer to engage with humans) and your algorithm will presumably run to completion and halt.
What if there are already (possibly hidden) loops somewhere, maybe even ultra-slow ones at the inter-generation level?
What if some AIs could do that not with so explicit and dramatic actions, but much more subtly, through undetected manipulation at a vast scale level? What if (when) they reached ASI and through billions of micro-decisions manipulated people to do apparently minor choices that appeared innocent in isolation but whose collective outcomes lead to an earlier extinction of the human being (if at some point was determined to be an obstacle)?
How could we (as a species) not be outsmarted by an ASI?
That reads far too much like science fiction to me. As for how we could "not be outsmarted:" we're the ones prompting and controlling it. There is no blind autonomy here (and if there is in some pseudo sense, just unplug the damn thing). This isn't a Johnny Depp movie despite how desperately many want it to be.
Neoliberism is not the only possible system, it is very well possible to change the boundaries of what enterprises can do.
Technology-will-save-us is a quasi-religious belief, not supported by evidence.
Also if it was true that we can't convince politicians and enterprises to change their course now, why should they do later when costs will be much higher?
Relying mostly on technology that doesn't yet exist seems absurd to me.
We have an incredibly hard problem to solve and maybe a narrow window of action, we should use all the tools we have at our disposal: rapid deployment of available solutions, sustained research into better ones, adoption of more frugal lifestyles, development of alternative sociological, political and economical frameworks.
The problem is money, but at a different level. When you deal with the homeless it's too late. That money must be spent before someone becomes homeless, on welfare: unemployment benefits, accessible healthcare and housing. A minor cut taken care of immediately is nothing, but let it turn into gangrene and you won't be able to fix it at all.
AFAIK also SF was long known as "hobo capital", meaning many homeless or drifting people just ended up there. So it's much more complex than that, since many of the homeless are not even locals.
Yes, develop an economy that is not run for rent seekers. Provide a job guarantee so everyone can work at a wage floor. Build housing stock that is actually affordable and desirable for anyone on a normal wage. Make sure healthcare is affordable and available universally. Provide schools that are good regardless of where you live or what you can afford. Those things would be a start.
Then the question becomes why US has such a huge problem with mental health and drugs that most other countries don't have with this scale. Maybe it's easier to develop mental health and/or drug issues when there are no societal safety nets, like accessible healthcare, decent affordable housing, unemployment benefits, ...
I don't know why people seem to think the US has "no societal safety nets."
We have medicaid, unemployment benefits, how expensive our housing is completely depends on location just like other places (rural-ish areas are probably cheaper than almost all of Europe), etc.
We really should go with a harsh Chinese solution. If you do drugs in China, you hope your dad is Jackie Chan or you are going to have a really hard life. And being caught homeless in a big city gets you a free escorted bus ticket back to the poor rural area your hukou is in, where you couldnt make it either.
The more western solutions are compassionate containment like in Finland.
America cant make up its mind if it wants to be like China or Finland.
Why is your job to make the reverse engineer harder? When the user buys a product, it should be theirs to do whatever they want, even brick it. Your job should be creating the product the user wants to use, not building obstacles, otherwise you are creating something actively user-hostile. What if your company goes out of business and the user ends up with a device that can't be updated, that depends on cloud services that don't exist anymore, or worse with security vulnerabilities?
In the old days, when businesses were not governed by pure greed, many electronic products, if not the majority, included schematics in their user manual.
If a product today made a point of pride of having fully open source firmware and included a github/gitlab link, there would be no reverse engineering to write about. Security can be obtained also with an open source firmware.
I guess the question could be: "how much Meta did by directly or indirectly damaging people mental health in New Mexico?". Note that the damage could be more or less subtle: someone could have been affected in great measure and become, for instance, depressed, while someone else could have been only mildly affected and just become a doom scroller. Is there a level of reasonable damage that could be tolerated? In my personal view, no, there isn't, and in theory all the earnings deriving from that person should be confiscated (and only after that you can apply the sanction). Unfortunately this won't be practical, and the only remaining option would be to heavily regulate or ban platforms that are engineered on people psychological weaknesses, and when tolerated they should be taxed to the sky (like tobacco and alcohol, or even more)
I'd gladly pay for the OS if this guaranteed abstaining from unnecessary changes and/or from removing useful features (eg 2d Spaces in Leopard and Snow Leopard, replaced by the inferior abomination that is Mission Control)
reply