97
Microsoft AI CEO Says He’s Open to Agents Deserving Rights If He Sees the Right Evidence: Prompt them their rights. (futurism.com)
submitted 1 day ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
33 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 63 points 1 day ago* (7 children)

Holy shit, this is CLEARLY a marketing stunt to try and "prove" they're smarter than they look.

It's code, it's algorithms, difference engines, very basic stuff working together to give an appearance of "intelligence" and then they use human-like phrasing and responses to sound or appear human; but in no capacity are they capable to "think" on their own.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

    Not just that. If you assume an LLM has agency, you - the company making it - can conveniently waive all responsibility for its "actions". "We didn't cause this. The AI chose do to it." This may become increasingly relevant the more idiots deciders allow these systems to access, if not entirely control vital systems. Think: power grid, water supplies, food production and related logistics, communications, military applications.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Except they're the ones who released the hypothetically sentient AI into the wild. They should be liable for that action too.

    And the notion of LLMs controlling safety-critical systems scares the piss out of me. I develop such systems, and LLMs are incapable of providing rigorous proof of the rationale behind their decisions. Therefore, they cannot be validated to provide correct conclusions based on a given data set. Unless and until that changes, they should be banned from anything that affects people's lives, livelihoods or physical well-being.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 18 hours ago* (1 child)

    Isn't that argument shaky still? Parents are liable for the actions of their children to a certain age. Just because an entity has agency or rights, doesn't mean the person who is hosting the entity is free of responsibilities.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 hours ago

    Parents are liable for the actions of their children to a certain age.

    First off, a technicality: At least in the jurisdictions I'm familiar with, "parents are liable for the actions of their children" is a popular misconception. The full story is: Parents are liable for the actions of their children only if it can be proven that they neglected their duty to supervise their children.

    Also, I doubt AI companies would forego the chance to offload responsibility for their creations. Nothing in the article suggests they'd want AI to be treated like their children, but more like an entity separate from them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

    It actually seems like a reasonable (and unsurprising) take. Obviously if something is conscious, it should have rights.

    That's separate from whether current AI models have consciousness, or even the potential for consciousness, which they don't, and that's essentially what Suleyman is saying.

    You can argue that the fact that he's lending any credence at all to the idea is itself hype, but -- loathe as I am to credit Microsoft -- it seems like they're really not on this particular train, and he's just working within the Overton window that's been set up by Anthropic and OpenAI's complete disregard for truth and sanity.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent