22
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2025
22 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
40450 readers
358 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Nowhere at all anywhere did I ever say AI is totally not a problem.
Maybe you should be less worried about reading between the lines and more worried about assuming what people didn't say?
The bot didn't want anything. It didn't try to murder anyone. At all. What happened was, rich fucks with unchecked power are allowed to release dangerous, unethical products based on nothing but hype and vapid promises.
The only thing technology related is the involvment of AI, and it's all BS and stupid. The AI DOES NOT WANT. The AI is not the one in control.
Without intent from the machine, this is EXACTLY THE SAME situation as every other time greedy capitalists pushed unsafe products.
Is the 9000000th time capitalists directly harmed society and those in it the time when humanity FINALLY learns to not let horrible shitheads run free over the world based on lies of promises!? Stay tuned to find out!!
I think the problem with anthropomorphizing LLMs this way is that they don't have intent, so they can't have responsiblity. If this piece of software had been given the tools to actually kill someone, I think we all understand that it wouldn't be appropriate to put the LLM on trial. Instead, we need to be looking at the people who are trying to give more power to these systems and dodge responsibility for their failures. If this LLM had caused someone to be killed, then the person who tied critical systems into a black box piece of software that is poorly understood and not fit for the purpose is the one who should be on trial. That's my problem with anthropomorphizing LLMs, it shifts the blame and responsibility away from the people who are responsible for attempting to use them for their own gain, at the expense of others.
right...the problem isn't the chatbot, it's the people giving the chatbot power and the ability to affect the real world.
thought experiment: I'm paranoid about home security, so I set up a booby-trap in my front yard, such that if someone walks through a laser tripwire they get shot with a gun.
if it shoots a UPS delivery driver, I am obviously the person culpable for that.
now, I add a camera to the setup, and configure an "AI" to detect people dressed in UPS uniforms and avoid pulling the trigger in that case.
but my "AI" is buggy, so a UPS driver gets shot anyway.
if a news article about that claimed "AI attempts to kill UPS driver" it would obviously be bullshit.
the actual problem is that I took a loaded gun and gave a computer program the ability to pull the trigger. it doesn't really matter whether that computer program was 100 lines of Python running on a Raspberry Pi or an "AI" running on 100 GPUs in some datacenter somewhere.
It DOES matter. Directly. Fully.
If people think that the unthinking "AI" actually has autonomy, they will be less likely to hold the people responsible to account.
Why do you not understand that? It is a critical fact of the matter that modern day "AI" does not think nor want, because then responsibility of its actions should then rightfully fall on to who set up the Rube Goldberg machine with machetes on it.
This is not a machine going postal. It's a dangerous product they've been allowed to sell.
We're trying to impress on you the importance of culpability. If it thinks for itself, then it becomes a defective product. If it doesn't, it's a dangerous product.
It's the difference between someone selling a car that happens to break down easily, and one where the brake lines randomly fall off because they fucked up the design and didn't want to spend the money to do it right... It's the difference between accidents and neglegence. This "AI" shit? Pure greed-fed neglegence.
The wording in the article is on purpose. They want you to think it doesn't matter while they're anthropomorphizing it, FFS. They want you to blame the bot, not the guy who made the obviously dangerous bot and then sold it to the world for billions.