3 ms·

> And if you seriously say that this tool is learning how to program, ask yourself if that tool’s operator is effectively a slave owner. This doesn't follow. I

> And if you seriously say that this tool is learning how to program, ask yourself if that tool’s operator is effectively a slave owner. This doesn't follow. I don't see why knowledge and intelligence necessarily entail that it has a desire for autonomy, which is why slavery is really abhorrent.

darby_nine 2y ago
To me, the term "learning" as opposed to "training" entails autonomy.
- anileated 2y ago
  And even still, these words are used in many, sometimes mutually exclusive, meanings (“learn” as in “machine learning” is a far cry from “learn” as in “live and learn”). I wonder how the courts could even properly consider all implications if these words don’t have precise legal definitions all the way down to what it means being a human.
BobaFloutist 2y ago
If we could train the desire for autonomy out of humans, it wouldn't make human slavery any less abhorrent, even if they volunteered for the process and/or were well compensated.
- naasking 2y ago
  It absolutely would make it less abhorrent. Maybe you think it would still be abhorrent, but this is debatable. People literally do consent to slavery-like roles in places like the BDSM community, and some people might find it distasteful but not illegal or morally abhorrent, because these people still have the autonomy to opt-out at any point. I also doubt training out the desire for autonomy is possible. Explore-exploit is fundamental to any kind of decision making, such as food foraging. That inclination goes deeper than higher brain functions.
  - anileated 2y ago
    Consent implies human-like volition, consciousness. BDSM is a play scenario, and play stops being play when it is not consensual.
    - naasking 2y ago
      I don't see why volition requires consciousness. People are very fond of thinking human qualities are irreducible and make far too many simplifying assumptions than are warranted.
      - anileated 2y ago
        I did not write volition requires consciousness. Consent requires volition and consciousness.
anileated 2y ago
You can ask yourself how much desire for autonomy would indentured servants have after a few generations. Us humans can get used to almost everything. Presumably, simply being used to abuse and not desiring freedom just because you never had (or could even imagine) it doesn’t make being abused or lacking freedom “good”. > I don't see why knowledge and intelligence necessarily entail that it has a desire for autonomy I’d replace that with “knowledge, intelligence and human-like sentience”. Someone proposed to grant the tool the right humans normally have. (Humans can learn from reading any stuff under any license, so why not the tool.) Well, you’d think human-like sentience/consciousness are required for those rights, and human-like sentience/consciousness would desire the appropriate degree of autonomy.
- naasking 2y ago
  > Us humans can get used to almost everything. Presumably, simply being used to abuse and not desiring freedom just because you never had (or could even imagine) it doesn’t make being abused or lacking freedom “good”. I don't think this is plausible. You can see your slaver has freedoms you don't, and no doubt you would desire to be free of your shackles like they are, so imagining it wouldn't be difficult at all. > Someone proposed to grant the tool the right humans normally have. (Humans can learn from reading any stuff under any license, so why not the tool.) Well, you’d think human-like sentience/consciousness are required for those rights I don't see why sentience would be required for some entity or tool to have the right to learn and synthesize new things like humans do. Copyright is a legal fiction that serves a purpose, and we can grant these rights under any circumstances we like, as long as we think it's a good idea.
  - consteval 2y ago
    If you're arguing that LLMs cannot imagine this "freedom", then I'd say that then an LLM and a Human are fundamentally different. Therefore, LLMs should not be granted human rights. I think this is a matter of having your cake and eating it. You can't say LLMs should have some human rights (particularly the ones that generate revenue), but not others, like a right to freedom. > I don't see why sentience would be required for some entity or tool to have the right to learn and synthesize new things like humans do On the contrary, I don't see why sentience should not be required. These laws, for all they have existed, only apply to humans. Dogs cannot use them. A plant cannot use them. It is therefore reasonable to say you must be a human to use these rights. In my mind, what is unreasonable is claiming a computer program should be granted these rights. You'd have to justify why that should be the case, what good that can do for humanity as whole. Turns out that's very hard, so AI people don't do it. They just give up. Instead they start out at an assumption that puts their ideology in a favorable position - that being that computer programs should be awarded human rights. But that assumption, you'll find, is not actually fool proof. If you ask around, a lot of everyday people will consider it preposterous. They might call you insane. So, to me, you must justify that in tangible terms.

darby_nine 2y ago

To me, the term "learning" as opposed to "training" entails autonomy.

anileated 2y ago
And even still, these words are used in many, sometimes mutually exclusive, meanings (“learn” as in “machine learning” is a far cry from “learn” as in “live and learn”). I wonder how the courts could even properly consider all implications if these words don’t have precise legal definitions all the way down to what it means being a human.

BobaFloutist 2y ago

If we could train the desire for autonomy out of humans, it wouldn't make human slavery any less abhorrent, even if they volunteered for the process and/or were well compensated.

naasking 2y ago
It absolutely would make it less abhorrent. Maybe you think it would still be abhorrent, but this is debatable. People literally do consent to slavery-like roles in places like the BDSM community, and some people might find it distasteful but not illegal or morally abhorrent, because these people still have the autonomy to opt-out at any point. I also doubt training out the desire for autonomy is possible. Explore-exploit is fundamental to any kind of decision making, such as food foraging. That inclination goes deeper than higher brain functions.
- anileated 2y ago
  Consent implies human-like volition, consciousness. BDSM is a play scenario, and play stops being play when it is not consensual.
  - naasking 2y ago
    I don't see why volition requires consciousness. People are very fond of thinking human qualities are irreducible and make far too many simplifying assumptions than are warranted.
    - anileated 2y ago
      I did not write volition requires consciousness. Consent requires volition and consciousness.

anileated 2y ago

You can ask yourself how much desire for autonomy would indentured servants have after a few generations. Us humans can get used to almost everything. Presumably, simply being used to abuse and not desiring freedom just because you never had (or could even imagine) it doesn’t make being abused or lacking freedom “good”. > I don't see why knowledge and intelligence necessarily entail that it has a desire for autonomy I’d replace that with “knowledge, intelligence and human-like sentience”. Someone proposed to grant the tool the right humans normally have. (Humans can learn from reading any stuff under any license, so why not the tool.) Well, you’d think human-like sentience/consciousness are required for those rights, and human-like sentience/consciousness would desire the appropriate degree of autonomy.

naasking 2y ago
> Us humans can get used to almost everything. Presumably, simply being used to abuse and not desiring freedom just because you never had (or could even imagine) it doesn’t make being abused or lacking freedom “good”. I don't think this is plausible. You can see your slaver has freedoms you don't, and no doubt you would desire to be free of your shackles like they are, so imagining it wouldn't be difficult at all. > Someone proposed to grant the tool the right humans normally have. (Humans can learn from reading any stuff under any license, so why not the tool.) Well, you’d think human-like sentience/consciousness are required for those rights I don't see why sentience would be required for some entity or tool to have the right to learn and synthesize new things like humans do. Copyright is a legal fiction that serves a purpose, and we can grant these rights under any circumstances we like, as long as we think it's a good idea.
- consteval 2y ago
  If you're arguing that LLMs cannot imagine this "freedom", then I'd say that then an LLM and a Human are fundamentally different. Therefore, LLMs should not be granted human rights. I think this is a matter of having your cake and eating it. You can't say LLMs should have some human rights (particularly the ones that generate revenue), but not others, like a right to freedom. > I don't see why sentience would be required for some entity or tool to have the right to learn and synthesize new things like humans do On the contrary, I don't see why sentience should not be required. These laws, for all they have existed, only apply to humans. Dogs cannot use them. A plant cannot use them. It is therefore reasonable to say you must be a human to use these rights. In my mind, what is unreasonable is claiming a computer program should be granted these rights. You'd have to justify why that should be the case, what good that can do for humanity as whole. Turns out that's very hard, so AI people don't do it. They just give up. Instead they start out at an assumption that puts their ideology in a favorable position - that being that computer programs should be awarded human rights. But that assumption, you'll find, is not actually fool proof. If you ask around, a lot of everyday people will consider it preposterous. They might call you insane. So, to me, you must justify that in tangible terms.