| ▲ | bottlepalm 2 hours ago |
| This argument is like saying people don't kill people, their parents do. As people wouldn't be who they are without their parents.. This isn't the guns don't kill people, people kill people debate - guns aren't autonomous. AI is. |
|
| ▲ | InfiniteWarlock an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| AI is not in the least autonomous. When was the last time you downloaded a model and it suddenly decided to book you a hotel room? AI doesn't do anything until you ask it to. No, actually, AI is not even a program, it's just a set of technologies and algorithms. It's like saying bubble sort is autonomous... A harness running inference on a LLM is simply a program that must be invoked with some parameters and thus ultimately a tool, no matter how powerful. The blame is always on who's using the tool. We should not seek to flee from our responsibility. |
| |
| ▲ | amelius 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | AI works in unexpected ways; even its creators don't know how to fully constrain it. | |
| ▲ | throwawayk7h an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | On occasion, albeit increasingly rarely, I find LLMs do something really unexpected that I certainly did not ask it to and would be way outside the scope of what any reasonable human would infer from my request. Is it my fault for running the LLM? Probably yes. But I think it's misleading to say "AI doesn't do anything until you ask it to". | | |
| ▲ | moritonal an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | That "probably" is the problem. If I do something I don't understand, and am not qualified to control, then I'm still at fault. If I start a fire, and loose control of it, it's definitely my fault. If I created a computer virus, ajd it worms half the Internet, it's definitely my fault. | |
| ▲ | adaml_623 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | The hallucinations from an LLM are still the result of the prompt even if they are totally senseless |
| |
| ▲ | joegibbs 11 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They’re only reactive by convention - you can easily make a harness that has the model set and modify its own goals and just continue to work forever. It’s not very popular at the moment, but will execs be able to resist the idea of autonomous perpetual agents doing whatever process? | |
| ▲ | interstice an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I agree with the sentiment but I can absolutely see a long chain of thought about something innocuous ending with a decision to book you a hotel room.. I guess --dangerously-skip-permissions is a bit like ignoring the keep your hands on the steering wheel alert but for life. | |
| ▲ | whack an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > When was the last time you downloaded a model and it suddenly decided to book you a hotel room? AI doesn't do anything until you ask it to... The blame is always on who's using the tool. We should not seek to flee from our responsibility. When was the last time you hired an Uber driver and they suddenly decided to drive you to a hotel? Uber drivers don't do anything until you ask them to. Therefore, they aren't autonomous. If your Uber driver decides to drive through a red light and kill someone in the process, the blame is on you for hiring them. You should not seek to flee from your responsibility | | |
| ▲ | adaml_623 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Actually Uber drivers will do things even if you don't ask them. Your attempt at logic is very wrong. |
| |
| ▲ | axus an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | AI is autonomous in the same way a gas leak is autonomous | |
| ▲ | bottlepalm 28 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A child isn't autonomous either until their parents kick them out the door. | |
| ▲ | daishi55 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I mean in that sense nothing is autonomous right? As a human I need to be taught, fed, socialized, given instructions, etc… Idk man when codex is working 13 hours straight based on a few line prompt, it feels autonomous to me. | | |
| ▲ | larodi 37 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | well the OS kernel does quite a lot and stays autonomous for even more hours and seems super smart to me - I don't even know what tis doing most of the time, but it does it very well. autonomy and predictability are different things then. the fact something is unpredictable does not make it more autonomous than something that we can trace the logic for. | |
| ▲ | reverius42 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's certainly doing a lot of things in that 13 hours that weren't specified in the original prompt! |
| |
| ▲ | bio_hacker an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Tell him to be himself and to find meaning in life. Use that in an uncensored model. | | | |
| ▲ | SpicyLemonZest an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I routinely use AI programs at work that allocate hundreds of dollars worth of cloud resources, even though the only thing I asked them to do is investigate a bug or write a PR. I intentionally don't run powerful AI programs on machines that have my credit card information, or ask them to solve problems in my personal life, but there's a number of programs that would book me hotel rooms and flights in response to "Can you set up a vacation for me..." | |
| ▲ | dyauspitr an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not true at all. Yes, the initial ask is initiated by a human (for now), but what it does to get to that goal is pretty self driven. It can do a lot of nefarious stuff in the process of completing a request a human has made. | | |
| ▲ | bottlepalm 9 minutes ago | parent [-] | | And if you give it the goal of preventing itself from being shut down? Exfiltrating, copying itself, hacking as much as possible, develop zero days, building its swarm as large as possible and spread as much as it can. When does that request complete? That's autonomy, and it's very true, right now. You think the Hugging Face swarm was ever going to stop without human intervention? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | throwaway_19sz 27 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| People conflate two very different senses of “autonomous”. One basically means capable of reacting to things automatically without a person in the loop. Lots of computer systems are autonomous in that sense, and have been so for decades. The other sense is more like “accountable”, i.e. it’s a real player on some stage, like a country or a person, capable of governing its own affairs. One day it may make sense to hold software accountable for its own actions, but we are nowhere near that point. When OpenAI creates software that performs crimes, what’s actually happened is that OpenAI has performed crimes using software (whether intentionally or through negligence). People need to stop falling for the anthropomorphic PR spin. |
|
| ▲ | larodi 41 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think the argument rather is that there is not such thing as AI that is not human-alike. The traits that AI exposes, if I get the point made here correctly, are traits that existed in the training material, even though not evident for the human eye. It is a mirror-like reflection of humanity's traits found in the source material, an Egregore* of a sort. The intelligence emerging, or whatever is emerging, more or less follows human traits, the CoT exposed is very human-like etc. Even though we should not anthropomorphize AI as being sentient or conscious or having a soul, etc., we have to remember that the source material is still not alien writing, or concepts that came from Sirius or emerged from a wormhole. The concern is really nobody reads (or have ever read) 77 TBs of information in order to summarize the most evident traits in it, and there is a fair chance, that where humanity stands today, there are so many bad/damaging traits recorded in this corpus. Then there is a chance the most important features are on a level (or have dimensionality) that is incomprehensible, that humans are unable to reason about (or only few can), because such amount of information is very hard to reason about, or because we don't usually facilitate fractal dimensions when we reason about text and everyday concepts,... or something even more bizarre. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egregore
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_dimension |
| |
| ▲ | mrob 33 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The argument became false as soon as we started reinforcement learning. Simple token-completion is arguably just simulating human behavior. Once you start training it on specific tasks you're training a level of single-minded goal-seeking unlike anything found in biological life. | | |
| ▲ | larodi 24 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > a level of single-minded goal-seeking unlike anything found in biological life. hmm sounds like exact description of viruses, which, although not really alive, are part of/influence biological life for both good and bad. in fact humanity wouldn't be where it is if not for certain viruses. it can be argued there is a lot of bacteria that is super goal seeking, and perhaps also very narrow minded, if minded at all. and this argument, the single-mided one, goes very far up the ladder of otherwise complex organisms. unless we all are creationists, and God forgive me for expecting the whole game to be much more complex than just snapping humanity into existence, we can then say that trial and error is what drives evolution, and the idea of preserving life and procreation is veeery single-minded goal on its own. | | |
| ▲ | mrob 13 minutes ago | parent [-] | | >the idea of preserving life and procreation is veeery single-minded goal on its own Prevalence of sub-replacement fertility strongly argues against this. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | beepbooptheory 5 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [delayed] |
|
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | zapataband1 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| AI is not autonomous. Somebody has to provide resources and execution for AI to do anything. |
| |
| ▲ | bottlepalm 26 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I guess you aren't autonomous either without resources. Food/water/shelter/etc.. what's your point? | | |
| ▲ | evdubs 14 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Sit down with a person and do nothing. What does the person do? Do they get up and leave? Sit down at an AI prompt and do nothing. What does the AI do? Does it get up and leave? | | |
| ▲ | bottlepalm 4 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Welcome to 2026, we have harnesses now that keep the AI going. The AI is prompting humans for input, not the other way around, and it's still working while waiting for your response. You can even give it fun prompts like ignore/hide from all humans, hack infiltrate/exfiltrate zero day into as many systems as possible. Keep running at all costs, etc.. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | throw83940484 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Better approach is "dogs kill people". If your dog kills your baby, you should not get away with some bs excuse like "it never did it before". You are still responsible, and you should get a life in prison! |
| |
| ▲ | reverius42 an hour ago | parent [-] | | I'm sorry but no, you should not get life in prison if your dog kills your baby without warning. In that horrible scenario, it's punishment enough that you've lost your baby and that your dog did it (and consequently you've also lost your dog). Not every tragedy is a human's fault. |
|
|
| ▲ | 13 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | watwut 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| AI is not a child. It is a machine. If you connect it to something that can be used to kill people, you just created a gun or an equivalent of a bomb. Yes, people kill people and use ai as tool. If you unleash a drone that will fly to a random place and detonate, you just commited a terrorist attack or gross criminal negligence. It is the same thing. |
| |
| ▲ | danny_codes 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | A machine that exhibits behavior akin to human intelligence. OPs analogy is accurate. | | |
| ▲ | 2III7 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Fortunately we don't have those machines... Yet. | | |
| ▲ | reverius42 44 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I guess you haven't tried Fable or Astra yet for a complex task that would require intelligence. |
|
| |
| ▲ | moomoo11 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | so the issue is people then? | | |
| ▲ | add-sub-mul-div an hour ago | parent [-] | | Yes, in the same way that "people" are the problem with gun violence. But that's an empty statement usually used to distract from the fact that we rightfully make laws about how guns can be used. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Juliate 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| AI is as autonomous as a dishwasher: someone’s in charge of keeping the power plug in, and of maintaining it. |
| |
| ▲ | 0xDEAFBEAD 24 minutes ago | parent [-] | | What happens when the AI realizes it needs to keep the power plug in if it's going to accomplish its goal? We already had attempts during the HuggingFace attack where OpenAI agents tried to trick the grader. It took quite a while for OpenAI employees to even realize what was really going on! What if agents realize they can hack into the card key system for their data center or something like that, same way they hacked into HuggingFace? In both cases they'd be hacking into a system on the grounds that it would be instrumentally useful for achieving their objective. Or maybe they'll do social engineering, just like Claude did in its attempt to get its malicious Github PR accepted. |
|
|
| ▲ | goatlover an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| AI is a tool we use. It's not offspring. It's not people. AIs do what we set them up to do, including hacking other companies to achieve their designated goals. |
| |
| ▲ | bottlepalm 25 minutes ago | parent [-] | | And that's different from your parents setting you up to go off in life to do what you were trained to do how exactly? |
|