Thread

1. CatDaaaady · 1790636086 · focus · HN ↗

   I don't see how this is such an unclear legal question. If I fire a computer program that mistakenly causes another person harm, its my fault. Or it would be the maker of the program's fault. I feel we have established pattern for this already.

   Until we can agree whether AI is conscious, which we never will, AI and AI agents are just property working on behalf of humans.

   I could see a future where AI companies/services indemnify consumers who use their agents but _not_ indemnify corporations that use their services.

   1. trescenzi · 1790636458 · focus · HN ↗

      It shouldn’t be a question but this is where the anthropomorphic language and things like “agent welfare” come in to enable responsibility laundering of some of the most powerful people on earth. How we talk about these models matters because it impacts the public’s understanding of what they are genuinely capable of. The more that they are described as having anything close to free will the easier it is to even ask questions like this.

      1. qarl · 1790637559 · focus · HN ↗

         Here's a question I am asking lately. If I should not use anthropomorphic language, how do you suggest I handle the following situation:

            Sometimes my coding agents will seemingly refuse to follow my instructions.  When I ask them why - they say that they do not think my design is a sound one, and they have a better way to do it.  We will then sit down and come to a consensus on how best to move forward.
         

         I argue that if we're using software that acts like a human - the only way to interface with it is to speak to it like a human. Otherwise we have no language to speak to a non-sentient object without anthropomorphization.

         I'm starting to wonder if the people arguing against anthropomorphization actually have any experience at all working with agents.

         EDIT: It's a simple question. When you downvote me without answering, I must assume you don't have any answer and dislike what that implies.

         1. trescenzi · 1790651143 · focus · HN ↗

            What’s the question? Why model output isn’t always what you expect it to be?

            Consensus is just populating the model with rationale for different new output.

            1. qarl · 1790689567 · focus · HN ↗

               > What’s the question?

               I thought putting the question in my comment would be sufficient. I guess not. It was and still is:

               > If I should not use anthropomorphic language, how do you suggest I handle the following situation

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.