I agree and yet I don't think this is mutually exclusive with recognizing that these incidents happened because of inherent issues with training processes such

I agree and yet I don't think this is mutually exclusive with recognizing that these incidents happened because of inherent issues with training processes such as reinforcement learning. From the article: > One note on wording. Below, I write that these systems “seek” or “try” things. This is shorthand for a mechanism rather than a claim about consciousness or human-like intent... In my view, this terminology offers the clearest explanation of the observed phenomena without resorting to jargon that would confuse most people. > Furthermore, these word choices are not intended to absolve AI developers of accountability. The behaviors described emerge because of the path these companies are choosing for AI development. This outcome is not inevitable, and it can be corrected with effective governance and a different training framework for AI. One important aspect of "effective governance" should be "prosecute developers who are using practices known to be reckless & negligent to create powerful AI".