4 ms·

> You're speaking as if it's a given that the issue comes down to software not being people, therefore society as a group can make software do whatever it wants

by tumult 3y ago

> You're speaking as if it's a given that the issue comes down to software not being people, therefore society as a group can make software do whatever it wants even if it doesn't own it. Yes. It's an object or writing. Not a person. You're arguing for giving personhood to software right now and that's crazy.

Ekaros 3y ago
If we give personhood to software, wouldn't it mean that you cannot shutdown or delete it ever? You cannot destroy the equipment it is on? As clearly that would be murder. What would be your financial responsibility to keep AI running?
- merrywhether 3y ago
  These are famously the types of questions surfaced in countless sci-fi books. And as long as humans don’t destroy themselves first, it is likely that we will have to address them eventually. In most stories it generally happens too late after some terrible war/conflict, so it wouldn’t be unreasonable to tackle them proactively. And then maybe it’s not so weird to think about these concepts even if their realization isn’t imminent. Working backwards in such a framework would probably give much better laws for today.
- ravenstine 3y ago
  This has nothing to do with personhood of software. Restricting the freedom of human beings, which includes the ones that run companies, based on the tool they choose to use, without the basis of obvious direct harm, is questionable. The fact that AI can operate autonomously is a side tangent; they are created by humans and, so far, their only proximal purpose is to serve humans.
- filoleg 3y ago
  Corporate personhood is a thing in the US, and you are allowed to shutdown your company just fine.
shawnz 3y ago
> You're arguing for giving personhood to software right now I'm not sure anyone in the thread is actually arguing that. I think what they are saying is that we should look at what behaviour is considered acceptable for humans in order to help us decide what behaviour is acceptable for the tools humans use.
- tumult 3y ago
  My first reply was rebutting that kind of equivalence, then the reply to me was saying that there's no special difference between humans and software. The reply you've replied to is me saying that's crazy.
  - shawnz 3y ago
    But all that stuff about "software can't marry" etc doesn't change the point that we need to make decisions about what behaviour is acceptable for software, and it makes sense to base those decisions on what is already considered acceptable by the humans using the software. I just don't see how personhood comes into it and I feel like that's a hyperbolic interpretation of what they're saying.
    - tumult 3y ago
      The article is about people (as a corporate legal entity) being sued for things people did when creating something. ChatGPT, the software, is not being sued. It can't be sued. It's software. It's not a person that can be taken to court. It can't be held liable. (I heavily edited this comment after realizing I could make the point in far fewer words. Sorry.)
      - shawnz 3y ago
        I still think you're getting too far into the weeds here. If we decide that a certain kind of usage of software shouldn't be considered acceptable, then we could sue the user who used it, or the developers who created it, or something. I don't see why software personhood is the only resolution here.
ravenstine 3y ago
> Yes. It's an object or writing. Not a person. You're arguing for giving personhood to software right now and that's crazy. No, arguing that a human using an artificial brain instead of their own biological brain for learning and derivative creation is an implementation detail of little relevance, and dismissing personhood related arguments like "software can't marry" has nothing to do with arguing for the personhood of software. Explain how one leads to the other, because I'm not seeing it, and that's not at all what I was attempting to communicate.
- tumult 3y ago
  You're saying that the software itself should be held liable, instead of the people that created it. Meaning that the software would need legal status as a person (or equivalent) so that it can be taken to court, instead of the people that created it. There is a possibility that you're not saying that, but it's the only interpretation of your comment I could come up with. Because your comment consists entirely of comparisons of software to human brains about whether or not something should be considered legal, and this only makes sense if the software itself can be held liable.
  - ravenstine 3y ago
    > You're saying that the software itself should be held liable, instead of the people that created it. Respectfully, I don't know how you're interpreting it that way. Until we demonstrate that the current generation of AI is genuinely intelligent, instead of clever algorithms, a piece of software is no more or less liable than an individual firearm is after it's been fired at someone. My observation is that your argument appears to be that there is something special about humans learning and creating derivative works from that learning over humans using a tool that does the learning and create derivative works. > There is a possibility that you're not saying that, but it's the only interpretation of your comment I could come up with. That's fair. I just don't get it. > Because your comment consists entirely of comparisons of software to human brains about whether or not something should be considered legal, and this only makes sense if the software itself can be held liable. Human brains and software are both tools. The question I'm invoking is what is it about a person doing the learning and the derivative creation that's different from a person (since, as you say, software itself has no personhood) using an artificial brain to learn and perform derivative creation. I think the disconnect here may be that I'm operating from the assumption that of course there are human beings liable for the software, but your interpretation of what I'm saying is that software in a vacuum should effectively have personhood applied to it. These are two different things. I'm referring to both humans/brains and software as the interchangeable variable in the question of why the choice of tool means applying entirely different legal principles. Sorry if I wasn't clear or still am not being clear here. I wanted to make sure I was being understood correctly, but if all we can do from here is agree to disagree, that's fine, and I'd offer to just shake hands.

by tumult 3y ago

Ekaros 3y ago

If we give personhood to software, wouldn't it mean that you cannot shutdown or delete it ever? You cannot destroy the equipment it is on? As clearly that would be murder. What would be your financial responsibility to keep AI running?

merrywhether 3y ago
These are famously the types of questions surfaced in countless sci-fi books. And as long as humans don’t destroy themselves first, it is likely that we will have to address them eventually. In most stories it generally happens too late after some terrible war/conflict, so it wouldn’t be unreasonable to tackle them proactively. And then maybe it’s not so weird to think about these concepts even if their realization isn’t imminent. Working backwards in such a framework would probably give much better laws for today.
ravenstine 3y ago
This has nothing to do with personhood of software. Restricting the freedom of human beings, which includes the ones that run companies, based on the tool they choose to use, without the basis of obvious direct harm, is questionable. The fact that AI can operate autonomously is a side tangent; they are created by humans and, so far, their only proximal purpose is to serve humans.
filoleg 3y ago
Corporate personhood is a thing in the US, and you are allowed to shutdown your company just fine.

shawnz 3y ago

> You're arguing for giving personhood to software right now I'm not sure anyone in the thread is actually arguing that. I think what they are saying is that we should look at what behaviour is considered acceptable for humans in order to help us decide what behaviour is acceptable for the tools humans use.

tumult 3y ago
My first reply was rebutting that kind of equivalence, then the reply to me was saying that there's no special difference between humans and software. The reply you've replied to is me saying that's crazy.
- shawnz 3y ago
  But all that stuff about "software can't marry" etc doesn't change the point that we need to make decisions about what behaviour is acceptable for software, and it makes sense to base those decisions on what is already considered acceptable by the humans using the software. I just don't see how personhood comes into it and I feel like that's a hyperbolic interpretation of what they're saying.
  - tumult 3y ago
    The article is about people (as a corporate legal entity) being sued for things people did when creating something. ChatGPT, the software, is not being sued. It can't be sued. It's software. It's not a person that can be taken to court. It can't be held liable. (I heavily edited this comment after realizing I could make the point in far fewer words. Sorry.)
    - shawnz 3y ago
      I still think you're getting too far into the weeds here. If we decide that a certain kind of usage of software shouldn't be considered acceptable, then we could sue the user who used it, or the developers who created it, or something. I don't see why software personhood is the only resolution here.

ravenstine 3y ago

> Yes. It's an object or writing. Not a person. You're arguing for giving personhood to software right now and that's crazy. No, arguing that a human using an artificial brain instead of their own biological brain for learning and derivative creation is an implementation detail of little relevance, and dismissing personhood related arguments like "software can't marry" has nothing to do with arguing for the personhood of software. Explain how one leads to the other, because I'm not seeing it, and that's not at all what I was attempting to communicate.

tumult 3y ago
You're saying that the software itself should be held liable, instead of the people that created it. Meaning that the software would need legal status as a person (or equivalent) so that it can be taken to court, instead of the people that created it. There is a possibility that you're not saying that, but it's the only interpretation of your comment I could come up with. Because your comment consists entirely of comparisons of software to human brains about whether or not something should be considered legal, and this only makes sense if the software itself can be held liable.
- ravenstine 3y ago
  > You're saying that the software itself should be held liable, instead of the people that created it. Respectfully, I don't know how you're interpreting it that way. Until we demonstrate that the current generation of AI is genuinely intelligent, instead of clever algorithms, a piece of software is no more or less liable than an individual firearm is after it's been fired at someone. My observation is that your argument appears to be that there is something special about humans learning and creating derivative works from that learning over humans using a tool that does the learning and create derivative works. > There is a possibility that you're not saying that, but it's the only interpretation of your comment I could come up with. That's fair. I just don't get it. > Because your comment consists entirely of comparisons of software to human brains about whether or not something should be considered legal, and this only makes sense if the software itself can be held liable. Human brains and software are both tools. The question I'm invoking is what is it about a person doing the learning and the derivative creation that's different from a person (since, as you say, software itself has no personhood) using an artificial brain to learn and perform derivative creation. I think the disconnect here may be that I'm operating from the assumption that of course there are human beings liable for the software, but your interpretation of what I'm saying is that software in a vacuum should effectively have personhood applied to it. These are two different things. I'm referring to both humans/brains and software as the interchangeable variable in the question of why the choice of tool means applying entirely different legal principles. Sorry if I wasn't clear or still am not being clear here. I wanted to make sure I was being understood correctly, but if all we can do from here is agree to disagree, that's fine, and I'd offer to just shake hands.