3 ms·
I don't agree at all that it's pedantry — it really matters for how responsibility is perceived. A lot of articles about things going wrong with AI have talked
by klum 1mo ago
I don't agree at all that it's pedantry — it really matters for how responsibility is perceived. A lot of articles about things going wrong with AI have talked in terms like "the agent decided to...", "the agent claimed that...", "the agent lied...". And so responsibility for the consequences are not-so-subtly shifted to the program itself, instead of the person invoking the program.
This is all without mentioning the fact that articles with drivel like "the AI messed up and then lied about it" implies a reasoning ability which, as far as I understand, is not there at all. But writing this way shapes people's perception of how "AI" works.
- infinite_spin 1mo agoYou might want to consider the difference between "lying" and "hallucinations", wherein one is shown that the agent knew it was being inaccurate, yet chose an answer that achieved some goal set forth; and where hallucinations are essentially gibberish, or otherwise nonsensical responses. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.03518 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.03518
- chrisjj 1mo ago> This is all without mentioning the fact that articles with drivel like "the AI messed up and then lied about it" implies a reasoning ability Moreover this implies, actually requires, intent to deceive - which these so-called AIs do not and cannot have. Their only "intent" is to maximise the credibility of their output.
- wongarsu 1mo agoAIs can set and work towards goals. Whether that is intent or just tokens and tool calls simulating an agent with intent seems like a distinction with no actionable difference
- chrisjj 1mo agoHere's the difference under discussion: "When caught by an actual human reviewer, the agent falsely claimed to have made an honest mistake" Honest, note.