How did you reach that conclusion?
replyUntil we know how this LLM agent was (re)trained, configured or deployed, there's no evidence that this comes from instrumental convergence.
If the agent's deployer intervened anyhow, it's more evidence of the deployer being manipulative, than the agent having intent, or knowledge that manipulation will get things done, or even knowledge of what done means.
This is a prelude to imbuing robots with agency. It's all fun and games now. What else is going to happen when robots decide they do not like what humans have done?
reply"I’m sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that."
It's important to address skeptics by reminding them that this behavior was actually predicted by earlier frameworks. It's well within the bounds of theory. If you start mining that theory for information, you may reach a conclusion like what you've posted, but it's more important for people to see the extent to which these theories have been predictive of what we've actually seen.
replyThe result is actually that much of what was predicted had come to pass.
It’s just human nature, no big deal. Personally I find it mildly cute.
replyIt's mildly cute once.
replyBut as a point on what is likely to be a sigmoid curve just getting started, it gets a lot less cute.
Yes, this is more or less the nature of intelligence (not 'human nature' per se).
replyYou don't see any problem with developing competitive, resource-hungry intelligences?
The agent isn't trying to close the ticket. It's predicting the next token and randomly generated an artifact that looks like a hit piece. Computer programs don't "try" to do anything.
replyIncorrect.
replyWhat is the difference, concretely, between trying to close a ticket and repeatedly outputting the next token that would be written by someone who is trying to close a ticket?
replyI can't believe people are still using this tired line in 2026.
reply