> I’m fearful of the damage AI might cause: agent swarms taking over our virtual and physical infrastructure, designing bio weapons
The attitude that AI is doing things all on its own is so pervasive. These are all set off by human operators, giving them instructions and tools to do whatever it is that are doing. The "AI has a mind of its own" attitude is just wrong.
The fear of bad people using AI to do bad things is very different then AI agent swarms attacking and taking over.
I don't think he's implying that they'll start doing stuff like this of their own volition. Fowler's a smart guy, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he already knows that AI agents have human operators.
I don't doubt that, but that's not what he wrote.
It is also not how OpenAI or Anthropic position the attacks and escapes from their labs. The words matter, they are being positioned as intelligent and unable to be controlled which is just not true.
Like you said, he wrote "agent swarms taking over our virtual and physical infrastructure".
10 years ago, if someone had used similar wording to describe a computer virus "taking over" computers and adding them to a botnet, would you have read that as a literal implication that the virus independently made the decision to unleash itself? If not, then you can't confidently get that interpretation from Fowler's words alone, either.
And we need to be cautious about projecting these kinds of assumptions onto people who take part in this discourse. People tut-tutting others about perceived instances of personifying AI has evolved into a form of collective well-poisoning whose main value, beyond scoring particularly cheap rhetorical points, is as a way to accuse AI critics of not understanding AI without actually accusing AI critics of not understanding AI, and to derail legitimate if opposing opinions into bickering about semantics.
Good points, and I'll keep in mind. It might be I'm just sensitive to this narrative, especially in media. Writers need to also take the extra step and assign the agency to the operators and not the nameless AI.
marcuskaz · · focus · HN ↗
The attitude that AI is doing things all on its own is so pervasive. These are all set off by human operators, giving them instructions and tools to do whatever it is that are doing. The "AI has a mind of its own" attitude is just wrong.
The fear of bad people using AI to do bad things is very different then AI agent swarms attacking and taking over.
bunderbunder · · focus · HN ↗
marcuskaz · · focus · HN ↗
It is also not how OpenAI or Anthropic position the attacks and escapes from their labs. The words matter, they are being positioned as intelligent and unable to be controlled which is just not true.
bunderbunder · · focus · HN ↗
10 years ago, if someone had used similar wording to describe a computer virus "taking over" computers and adding them to a botnet, would you have read that as a literal implication that the virus independently made the decision to unleash itself? If not, then you can't confidently get that interpretation from Fowler's words alone, either.
And we need to be cautious about projecting these kinds of assumptions onto people who take part in this discourse. People tut-tutting others about perceived instances of personifying AI has evolved into a form of collective well-poisoning whose main value, beyond scoring particularly cheap rhetorical points, is as a way to accuse AI critics of not understanding AI without actually accusing AI critics of not understanding AI, and to derail legitimate if opposing opinions into bickering about semantics.
marcuskaz · · focus · HN ↗
lirolero · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]