You are describing the " unmoved mover", an argument for the existence of God

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover

I don't think so...? Maybe I'm understanding the article wrong? I get the overlay, but I'm being specific to LLM chains... They require something to kick them off, they do not act autonomously. A human does something, types, speaks, presses a button, whatever. A Cron Job firing off is the result of a prior prompt, by a human.

I don't follow the chain further back than that, as I believe humans have free will. I get that that's debated, but thats why I draw the line at human action.

▲

pixl97 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

>I don't follow the chain further back than that

Why even have an argument if you get to pick the random constraints that have a lot of issues in meshing with reality.

We are a chain that started 4 billion years ago from seemingly nothing and lead to this point. When inventing X-risk AI it won't look any different. One prompt is entered and another 4 billion year chain starts electronically instead of biologically.

	▲	dpoloncsak 39 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Why draw the line at the person with the brain capable of free thought, instead of their great great great grandparents? Am I understanding your question correctly?

▲

hackyhacky an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't think Free Will is the issue here. My argument is that humans require input to act. We can't test that theory, because there is never been a human being who did not receive input. Everything that we experience from birth through childhood into adulthood is our input and forms our choices about what to do. That includes what the study, who to love, what our hobbies are, what kind of work we pursue.

▲

dpoloncsak 40 minutes ago | parent [-]

Legally, we draw the line at the human causing the action (Insanity pleas withstanding). I don't see why we treat this any differently.

	▲	hackyhacky 12 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Oh absolutely. The legal situation is completely clear. AIs simply don't have rights or responsibilities. And the law as it applies to humans is premised on the assumption of free will: that a person can choose to obey the law or not, and bear the responsibility of the consequences. But that interpretation of Free Will is a legal fiction. Because of course what people do is determined by their upbringing and their opportunities and the environment that they have. In fact, that's an argument of a lot of legal reform movements that seek to move responsibility from the individual. The goal of the law is to assign responsibility and create a set of incentives which will hopefully result in orderly society. But in the AI debate, we're not just creating incentives for an orderly Society, we're talking about the nature of creativity and the impetus to act. And by that measure I don't think there is a significant difference between AIs and human beings.