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. diegof79 · 1790652043 · focus · HN ↗

            I didn't downvote you, but your last paragraph is unnecessarily aggressive.

            I've worked with agents, and I agree with you that often there isn't another way to express the interactions.

            However, I also think the terms ML uses in general are a mimicry that misleads people who aren't informed. Ask anyone outside SWE what they think “training” means, and they'll usually picture something being taught.

            I don’t think anybody can change that now, but it’s useful to point it out.

            1. qarl · 1790689643 · focus · HN ↗

               > Ask anyone outside SWE what they think “training” means, and they'll usually picture something being taught.

               You mean how early-on people thought that planes flapped their wings while they flew?

               These aren't problems. This is the way language works.

               1. diegof79 · 1790762562 · focus · HN ↗

                  I agree with you that we use analogies to name new things, and that’s the way language works.

                  However, you can see an airplane flying. Still, you cannot see software processes at work, and that causes misunderstandings and misinformation, which is at the core of the changes that we are experiencing with AI.

                  This is a fragment of another article posted here on HN about an ongoing dispute between OpenAI and the New York Times:

                  “The defendants say this is a simple application of fair use: Their argument is that if you read a story and simply remember what was in it to expand your base of knowledge, that cannot be considered a copyright infringement”

                  However, if you replace “read” with “web scraping” and “expand your base of knowledge” with “storing the information,” the perspective changes too.

                  1. qarl · 1790774040 · focus · HN ↗

                     I agree. The analogies are interesting but only go so far.

                     I think it's safe to trust the decisions of the courts. Judges aren't easily fooled by slippery language.

                     For example, in Bartz v. Anthropic, Judge Alsup ruled that training is fair use because training is transformative. In his words "spectacularly so".

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.