Why are you arguing over irrelevancies?

When people say the models "went rogue", the part of that is relevant is that it did dangerous things that were not reasonably predictable in advance and cannot be easily prevented (except by not running it). Philosophical questions are irrelevant.

if you agree that such models are dangerous because they may in response to instructions -- including in response to careless instructions, because people will be careless, that is unavoidable! -- do unpredictable bad things outside of expected bounds, then you agree on the essential points!

Or really perhaps what I should say here is, the question that's really being argued over here isn't even the one I just said, rather it's one of appropriate action -- should such security breaches be solved by improving security, or by doing something about the models (including potentially just not running them)? (The answer may be both.) If you agree that the solution includes the latter, then you agree that the models are "going rogue" in the sense that is being argued over, regardless of philosophical issues!

Don't turn a question of actual import into one of philosophical irrelevancies! If you object to the terminology, fine, but in that case, instead of turning the argument to philosophy, you should say "instead of saying 'going rogue', I would prefer to instead say <your preferred terminology for what's being described>, as that doesn't carry such philosophical baggage."

▲

lukewarm707 29 minutes ago | parent [-]

> "Should such security breaches be solved by improving security, or by doing something about the models?"

The philosophical question about free will is actually the grounding of the legal one.

Sam wanted to be the best, so Sam accelerated to 120mph in his car and lost control. You are the judge:

a) Sam is responsible. Convict Sam and suspend Sam's driving license.

b) The car is responsible. Tell Sam to make the car safer.

Capacity: was the car a legal person? Clearly no. But maybe at best the car in some way commited the physical act of going fast.

However, that alone would not establish guilt. "The act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty" (mens rea).

Did the car "consiously" disregard a duty of care by going 120mph? Did the car know that it was wrong to go 120mph and yet choose to do it anyway?

On the question of free will, the car could not do otherwise. It it did not consciously, knowingly, purposely, or recklessly accelerate to that speed. The car did not have a guilty mind because it did not have a mind at all.

So in terms of justice and resolution, none of the focus here is on the car.

	▲	Sniffnoy 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Ah, I see. It appears we have an implicit disagreement of scale. I actually do disagree with much the more explicit content of your comment, but I am not going to bother to expand on that, because it is the less directly relevant of the two disagreements here, and it would take time to write that. The more relevant disagreement is that you are (I gather) assuming a context where justice and restitution are a sufficient response to the problem (or else you wouldn't be focusing on them to this extent, I am inferring). Like, where the incidents don't get that much bigger than what has already happened. So the question becomes how do we distribute the loss, and how do we disincentivize them. However, when the scale of a potential incident gets big enough, justice and deterrence are not sufficient; prevention becomes the far more relevant consideration. You may have noticed that many people are worried about potential human extinction as a result of AIs. In that case, prevention becomes the only consideration -- justice is useless. So there seems to be an implicit disagreement here between thinking of such events as being on a scale not too much larger than that which has already happened, being a new normal that the legal system will need to handle, vs thinking of such events as warning shots for something that requires prevention and not justice. So, while I also disagree with the more explicit content of your comment, the fact is I simply wasn't thinking about such matters in the first place -- I was talking about this in the frame of a problem that requires prevention, I wasn't thinking about the justice question at all. It honestly failed to occur to me that you might be thinking of this as a problem where justice suffices!