3 ms·

The idea of putting an LLM anywhere even in the same 2-3 orders of magnitude of sophistication as ChatGPT in charge of drone strikes, without humans in the loop

The idea of putting an LLM anywhere even in the same 2-3 orders of magnitude of sophistication as ChatGPT in charge of drone strikes, without humans in the loop, is so ludicrous it's not even worth giving attention to. Note that I'm not saying it's impossible that some military might choose to do so: I'm saying that the choice itself is hopelessly negligent and guaranteed to result in the pointless death of innocents. Furthermore, I don't think even a military that's that stupid and uncaring about human life would consider for a second opening up an LLM like that to inputs from arbitrary people on the Internet. If you can come up with a fantasy scenario that has some vague sense of plausibility, I might be willing to entertain it; whatever this is is just not even worth dignifying with that level of response.

famouswaffles 4y ago
you're missing the point entirely. that was just an illustration to show how little internals matter in the face of results and actions. "it's just a simulation" is not the shield you think it is. not when models interact with the real world. even your rebuttal is just "well the military won't put gpt in control of that". ok, what about all the myriad of things it can and will be put in control of. humanity is racing already to dump as much control of api's and systems as feasible - taskmatrix, hugginggpt, etc on llms today. that's just going to increase. you'd be surprised how little it takes to deal real world damage for the individual.
- danaris 4y ago
  I think you're mixing up "humanity" with "Silicon Valley techbros". Everyone I've talked to about LLMs outside of this forum sees them as an amusing entertainment, and possibly occasionally useful for a few suggestions. Not something that's going to change their world any time soon, and certainly not anything that we should be trusting with anything sensitive in any way. Literally everyone. In any case, I think you're really missing what the actual question was that I was responding to: Would conferring legal personhood change my mind about actual personhood. The ability to do harm is not, in my mind, particularly relevant to questions of personhood. In fact, I would think that a much better indicator thereof would be the ability to choose not to do harm, given the capability, and someone trying to make you do so.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    >In any case, I think you're really missing what the actual question was that I was responding to: Would conferring legal personhood change my mind about actual personhood. Well, "conferring legal personhood" would mandatorily (by law) at least change parts of your behavior and professional conduct against one (e.g. you'll have to treat it as a person in any areas covered by legal rights, or you'll be prosecuted for discrimination). And it will also change education etc - you will be taught in official textbooks that it's a person and you should consider it as such. This might not change your mind, but will change the minds of most kids being taught that.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
coldtea 4y ago
To be frank, it's not like those ordering and controlling drone strikes take that much more caution or are much more humane.

famouswaffles 4y ago

you're missing the point entirely. that was just an illustration to show how little internals matter in the face of results and actions. "it's just a simulation" is not the shield you think it is. not when models interact with the real world. even your rebuttal is just "well the military won't put gpt in control of that". ok, what about all the myriad of things it can and will be put in control of. humanity is racing already to dump as much control of api's and systems as feasible - taskmatrix, hugginggpt, etc on llms today. that's just going to increase. you'd be surprised how little it takes to deal real world damage for the individual.

danaris 4y ago
I think you're mixing up "humanity" with "Silicon Valley techbros". Everyone I've talked to about LLMs outside of this forum sees them as an amusing entertainment, and possibly occasionally useful for a few suggestions. Not something that's going to change their world any time soon, and certainly not anything that we should be trusting with anything sensitive in any way. Literally everyone. In any case, I think you're really missing what the actual question was that I was responding to: Would conferring legal personhood change my mind about actual personhood. The ability to do harm is not, in my mind, particularly relevant to questions of personhood. In fact, I would think that a much better indicator thereof would be the ability to choose not to do harm, given the capability, and someone trying to make you do so.
- coldtea 4y ago
  >In any case, I think you're really missing what the actual question was that I was responding to: Would conferring legal personhood change my mind about actual personhood. Well, "conferring legal personhood" would mandatorily (by law) at least change parts of your behavior and professional conduct against one (e.g. you'll have to treat it as a person in any areas covered by legal rights, or you'll be prosecuted for discrimination). And it will also change education etc - you will be taught in official textbooks that it's a person and you should consider it as such. This might not change your mind, but will change the minds of most kids being taught that.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

coldtea 4y ago

To be frank, it's not like those ordering and controlling drone strikes take that much more caution or are much more humane.