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.
replyI think those companies are referring to other companies - say Chinese AI companies - who we also need protection from.
replyIMO 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?
reply"We" need protection from, or "OpenAI and Anthroptic's dreams of profits" need protection from?
replyI think that AI is dangerous and could be used as a weapon.
replySo yes, I would like to be protected from all parties. I don't think that's nuts.
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.
replyI 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.
replyI 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.
replyThose are two different issues. One is about typical speech patterns and one is about liability.
replyI 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.
oh we do! At least they google is quite good at adhering to robots.txt.
replyGoogle's web crawlers are automated and that's part of their business practice.
replyThe attack here is neither of those things.
That distinction doesn't matter to my point.
reply