This distinction is silly.

We say "Google's web crawlers scape web pages." We don't insist you say "Google uses web crawlers to scrape web pages."

We describe software as having agency all the time. It's typical usage and it's efficient and it's well understood.

And we don't get angry when they're used interchangeably.

evrydayhustling an hour ago | parent | next [-]

In this case, who holds the agency is exactly the point. Anthropic and OAI are claiming we need protection from AI itself, but the statement supported by putting agency in the right place is that we need protection from them.

▲

qarl an hour ago | parent [-]

I think those companies are referring to other companies - say Chinese AI companies - who we also need protection from.

▲

GolfPopper 26 minutes ago | parent [-]

"We" need protection from, or "OpenAI and Anthroptic's dreams of profits" need protection from?

	▲	qarl 16 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I think that AI is dangerous and could be used as a weapon. So yes, I would like to be protected from all parties. I don't think that's nuts.

▲

simonebrunozzi an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I would agree with you generally, but in this particular case, the distinction seems important because a significant percentage of the world population believes that agents can be self-aware, a-là Terminator etc.

	▲	qarl an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I hate to spoil your mood - but it is currently unclear whether agents can be self-aware. And it's very likely something that can never be known.

▲

high_priest an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I very much say "Google uses web crawlers to scrape web pages." and if something breaks, or some data is stolen, everyone else is going to be saying that Google has to take responsibility.

	▲	qarl an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Those are two different issues. One is about typical speech patterns and one is about liability. I agree with you on the liability issue, but I don't think there much question about this issue outside the anti-AI conspiracy campaigns. And I disagree with your typical usage claim. I myself tend to use the phrase that has the fewest words in all cases. It's like the rule against using passive tense when writing.

▲

dingdongditchme an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

oh we do! At least they google is quite good at adhering to robots.txt.

▲

sedawkgrep an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Google's web crawlers are automated and that's part of their business practice.

The attack here is neither of those things.

	▲	qarl an hour ago \| parent [-]
		That distinction doesn't matter to my point.