3 ms·

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 simulatio

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.

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.