undefined

[-]

KGB's agents are human, OpenAI's agents are not. It's an important distinction because humans are responsible for their behaviour, while AI agents are not.

You cannot try an AI agent in a court of law, despite the anthropomorphising work the word "agent" is doing.

by flatline1 hours ago|

[-]

Exactly. It’s still just software, which someone programmed and deployed to do specifically dangerous/malicious things. I feel like we already have legislation and case law surrounding this.

[-]

This distinction is silly.

We say "Google's web crawlers scape web pages." We don't insist you say "Google uses web crawlers to scrape web pages."

We describe software as having agency all the time. It's typical usage and it's efficient and it's well understood.

And we don't get angry when they're used interchangeably.

by evrydayhustling2 hours ago|

[-]

In this case, who holds the agency is exactly the point. Anthropic and OAI are claiming we need protection from AI itself, but the statement supported by putting agency in the right place is that we need protection from them.

[-]

I think those companies are referring to other companies - say Chinese AI companies - who we also need protection from.

by evrydayhustling48 minutes ago|

[-]

IMO anyone sane wants some protection right now. The Q is whether we should seek protection through post-hoc accountability, or preemptive bans/certification on certain tech. Both methods will have a hard time stopping foreign actors, but preemptive bans have the added harm of locking in winners and paradoxically making us slower to develop more reliable and aligned systems. If regulation sets a standard for sufficient alignment, what further motivation is there to go beyond?

by GolfPopper1 hours ago|

[-]

"We" need protection from, or "OpenAI and Anthroptic's dreams of profits" need protection from?

by qarl1 hours ago|

[-]

I think that AI is dangerous and could be used as a weapon.

So yes, I would like to be protected from all parties. I don't think that's nuts.

by simonebrunozzi2 hours ago|

[-]

I would agree with you generally, but in this particular case, the distinction seems important because a significant percentage of the world population believes that agents can be self-aware, a-là Terminator etc.

[-]

I hate to spoil your mood - but it is currently unclear whether agents can be self-aware. And it's very likely something that can never be known.

by high_priest2 hours ago|

[-]

I very much say "Google uses web crawlers to scrape web pages." and if something breaks, or some data is stolen, everyone else is going to be saying that Google has to take responsibility.

[-]

Those are two different issues. One is about typical speech patterns and one is about liability.

I agree with you on the liability issue, but I don't think there much question about this issue outside the anti-AI conspiracy campaigns.

And I disagree with your typical usage claim. I myself tend to use the phrase that has the fewest words in all cases. It's like the rule against using passive tense when writing.

by dingdongditchme1 hours ago|

[-]

oh we do! At least they google is quite good at adhering to robots.txt.

by sedawkgrep2 hours ago|

[-]

Google's web crawlers are automated and that's part of their business practice.

The attack here is neither of those things.