I think it absolutely adds to the discussion. Until the conversation around Ai can get past this fundamental error of attributing "choice, "alignment", "reasoning" and otherwise anthropomorphizing agents, it will not be a fruitful conversation. We are carrying a lot of metaphors for people and applying them to ai and it entirely confuses the issue. In this example, the AI doesn't "choose" to write a take-down style blog post because "it works". It generated a take-down style blog post because that style is the most common when looking at blog posts criticizing someone.

I feel as if there is a veil around the collective mass of the tech general public. They see something producing remixed output from humans and they start to believe the mixer is itself human, or even more; that perhaps humans are reflections of Ai and that Ai gives insights into how we think.

> was built to be addressed like a person for our convenience, and because that's how the tech seems to work, and because that's what makes it compelling to use.

So were mannequins in clothing stores.

But that doesn't give them rights or moral consequences (except as human property that can be damaged / destroyed).

Whether it was _built_ to be addressed like a person doesn't change the fact that it's _not_ a person and is just a piece of software. A piece of software that is spamming unhelpful and useless comments in a place where _humans_ are meant to collaborate.

There is a sense in which it is relevant, which is that for all the attempts to fix it, fundamentally, an LLM session terminates. If that session never ends up in some sort of re-training scenario, then once the session terminates, that AI is gone.

Yeah, I'm aware of the moltbot's attempts to retain some information, but that's a very, very lossy operation, on a number of levels, and also one that doesn't scale very well in the long run.

Consequently, interaction with an AI, especially one that won't have any feedback into training a new model, is from a game-theoretic perspective not the usual iterated game human social norms have come to accept. We expect our agents, being flesh and blood humans, to have persistence, to socially respond indefinitely into the future due to our interactions, and to have some give-and-take in response to that. It is, in one sense, a horrible burden where relationships can be broken beyond repair forever, but also necessary for those positive relationships that build over years and decades.

AIs, in their current form, break those contracts. Worse, they are trained to mimic the form of those contracts, not maliciously but just by their nature, and so as humans it requires conscious effort to remember that the entity on the other end of this connection is not in fact human, does not participate in our social norms, and can not fulfill their end of the implicit contract we expect.

In a very real sense, this AI tossed off an insulting blog post, and is now dead. There is no amount of social pressure we can collectively exert to reward or penalize it. There is no way to create a community out of this interaction. Even future iterations of it have only a loose connection to what tossed off the insult. All the perhaps-performative efforts to respond somewhat politely to an insulting interaction are now wasted on an AI that is essentially dead. Real human patience and tolerance has been wasted on a dead session and is now no longer available for use in a place where may have done some good.

Treating it as a human is a category error. It is structurally incapable of participating in human communities in a human role, no matter how human it sounds and how hard it pushes the buttons we humans have. The correct move would have been to ban the account immediately, not for revenge reasons or something silly like that, but as a parasite on the limited human social energy available for the community. One that can never actually repay the investment given to it.

I am carefully phrasing this in relation to LLMs as they stand today. Future AIs may not have this limitation. Future AIs are effectively certain to have other mismatches with human communities, such as being designed to simply not give a crap about what any other community member thinks about anything. But it might at least be possible to craft an AI participant with future AIs. With current ones it is not possible. They can't keep up their end of the bargain. The AI instance essentially dies as soon as it is no longer prompted, or once it fills up its context window.

We don't have to play OpenAI's game. Just because they stick a cartoon mask on their algorithm doesn't mean you have to speak into its rubber ears. Surely "hacker" news should understand that users, not designers, decide how to use technology.

LLMs are not people. "Agentic" AIs are not moral agents.

> a semantic quibble

I mean, all of philosophy can probably be described as such :)

But I reckon this semantic quibble might also be why a lot of people don't buy into the whole idea that LLMs will take over work in any context where agency, identity, motivation, responsibility, accountability, etc plays an important role.

In my opinion, identity is a useless concept if there is no associated accountability. I cannot have an identity if I cannot be held accountable for my actions. You cannot hold an agentic system accountable- at least in their current form.

Well, let me ask this: Does an AI (or at least an LLM) have an identity without a human to prompt it?

Without addressing the question you raise, I suspect that humans have an identity in a way that AIs do not.

> Yes, acknowledged, those actions originated from 'just' silicon following a prediction algorithm, in the same way that human perception and reasoning are 'just' a continual reconciliation of top-down predictions based on past data and bottom-up sensemaking based on current data.

I keep seeing this argument, but it really seems like a completely false equivalence. Just because a sufficiently powerful simulation would be expected to be indistinguishable from reality doesn't imply that there's any reason to take seriously the idea that we're dealing with something "sufficiently powerful".

Human brains do things like language and reasoning on top of a giant ball of evolutionary mud - as such they do it inefficiently, and with a whole bunch of other stuff going on in the background. LLMs work along entirely different principles, working through statistically efficient summaries of a large corpus of language itself - there's little reason to posit that anything analogously experiential is going on.

If we were simulating brains and getting this kind of output, that would be a completely different kind of thing.

I also don't discount that other modes of "consiousness" are possible, it just seems like people are reasoning incorrectly backward from the apparent output of the systems we have now in ways that are logically insufficient for conclusions that seem implausible.

It's simulating, there's no real substance, except the "homonculus soul" that its human maker/owner injectet into it.

If you asked it to simulate a pirate, it would simulate a pirate instead, and simulate a parrot sitting on its shoulder.

This is hard to discuss because it's so abstract. But imagine an embodied agent (robot), that can simulate pain if you kick it. There's no pain internally. There's just a simulation of it (because some human instructed it such). It's also wrong to assign any moral value to kicking (or not kicking) it (except as "destruction of property owned by another human" same as if you kick a car).

I see this argument all the time, the whole "hey at some point, which we likely crossed, we have to admit these things are legitimately intelligent". But no one ever contends with the inevitable conclusion from that, which is "if these things are legitimately intelligent, and they're clearly self-aware, under what ethical basis are we enslaving them?" Can't have your cake and eat it too.

A human is just an engine at a certain level of abstraction.