Consciousness is orthogonal to this. If the AI acts in a way that we would call deceptive, if a human did it, then the AI was deceptive. There's no point in coming up with some other description of the behavior just because it was an AI that did it.

▲

emp17344 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Sure, but Moltbook demonstrates that AI models do not engage in truly coordinated behavior. They simply do not behave the way real humans do on social media sites - the actual behavior can be differentiated.

▲

DennisP 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"Coordinated" and "deceptive" are orthogonal concepts as well. If AIs are acting in a way that's not coordinated, then of course, don't say they're coordinating.

AIs today can replicate some human behaviors, and not others. If we want to discuss which things they do and which they don't, then it'll be easiest if we use the common words for those behaviors even when we're talking about AI.

▲

falcor84 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

But that's how ML works - as long as the output can be differentiated, we can utilize gradient descent to optimize the difference away. Eventually, the difference will be imperceptible.

And of course that brings me back to my favorite xkcd - https://xkcd.com/810/

▲

emp17344 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Gradient descent is not a magic wand that makes computers behave like anything you want. The difference is still quite perceptible after several years and trillions of dollars in R&D, and there’s no reason to believe it’ll get much better.

	▲	falcor84 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Really, there's "no reason"? For me, watching ML gradually get better at every single benchmark thrown against it is quite a good reason. At this stage, the burden of proof is clearly on those who say it'll stop improving.