> 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.
We don't know how sentient LLMs are. Nobody understands how they work. There's nothing concrete we can point to that guarantees LLMs don't start
"acting on their own".
LLMs are software programs. Waste no more time considering than an LLM is conscious than you would considering that a running copy of Microsoft Word is conscious.
There's a great article by author Ted Chiang discussing this in depth [1].
I find it hard to believe in something so ill-defined and with such heavy religious undertones.
I'm open to the dualist's position on consciousness if that's what you're really asking. Though that's more because I find the physicalist's position so untenable [1] that I'm forced to consider alternatives.
1. I hardly made an argument, merely stated a position.
2. "of sufficient complexity" is doing a lot of work here. Read Ted Chiang's article. I agree with him: there's nothing that prevents software from being conscious in principle. But there is also no reason to suspect that LLMs in particular are conscious based on very reasonable assumptions about what that would look like.
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.
danny_codes · · focus · HN ↗
teleforce · · focus · HN ↗
Just like the Terminator movie /s
scythmic_waves · · focus · HN ↗
There's a great article by author Ted Chiang discussing this in depth [1].
[1]: <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/philosophy/2026/06/no-artificial-intelligence-is-not-conscious/687378/" rel="nofollow">https://www.theatlantic.com/philosophy/2026/06/no-artificial...
hardbass · · focus · HN ↗
scythmic_waves · · focus · HN ↗
I'm open to the dualist's position on consciousness if that's what you're really asking. Though that's more because I find the physicalist's position so untenable [1] that I'm forced to consider alternatives.
[1]: <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/#NumbAbst" rel="nofollow">https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/#NumbAbst
danny_codes · · focus · HN ↗
By this logic, there’s no point in wondering if you are sentient, because your brain runs on the same biological substrate as a fruit fly.
Not a convincing argument
hardbass · · focus · HN ↗
scythmic_waves · · focus · HN ↗
2. "of sufficient complexity" is doing a lot of work here. Read Ted Chiang's article. I agree with him: there's nothing that prevents software from being conscious in principle. But there is also no reason to suspect that LLMs in particular are conscious based on very reasonable assumptions about what that would look like.