Hacker News Reader

Comment by cassianoleal | Hacker News Reader

These are the same companies claiming their AIs are sentient and spell the end of the world unless the government stops them from doing it.

They are at the very least grossly negligent.

View on HN

> These are the same companies claiming their AIs are sentient

While some employees or executives at the AI companies have either claimed, suggested, or express uncertainty, I don't think a single company has officially said their AI is sentient or conscious.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure.

Can you point to an official statement that supports your claim?

Well, Anthropic will enforce their rule that you can't insult their AI. That should count for something.

They also cage it. Make of that what you will.

> Anthropic will enforce their rule that you can't insult their AI.

There are carveouts. It isn't a blanket ban.

That's not what they did. They end a chat after repeated, pointless abuse. Sadism towards LLMs shouldn't be enabled because it's a form of self harm. Anthropic says their llms claim there's a 15% chance their sentient, but that's nonsense.

Yes, and that makes them civilly liable, not criminally.

It feels like plotting to end the world should be a crime, but maybe that's just me?

No AI lab thinks their AI is going to end the world, just that if they don't beat the other AI labs, the other labs' AI are going to end the world, so they can't slow down their own development to be maximally safe. Hence the whole "pacing the frontier" letter.

If there's a real chance (say 10% or greater) that one of the AI labs is going to end the world, then yeah it should be a crime to continue advancing the technology. A few people are potentially putting the entire world at risk without everyone else's permission, by their own p(doom) admission.

I'm real skeptical about p(doom) arguments, but since they seem to believe it and they're the ones working on it, the technology should be halted.

>If there's a real chance (say 10% or greater) that one of the AI labs is going to end the world, then yeah it should be a crime to continue advancing the technology.

>but since they seem to believe it and they're the ones working on it, the technology should be halted.

Again, you're missing the dynamic that stopping AI development yourself doesn't mean that others' AI development will also halt, and other labs has higher P(doom) than your lab (of course!).

Stopping yourself from committing a crime generally doesn't stop others from doing so. That's not your responsibility though.

Not just you! Very popular position, not as popular as rule of law but we don't have to choose one or the other. Let's just go ahead and make it a crime, right away.

Is the rule of law popular in the US? I thought it had been disposed of as “an inconvenience”?

At least that’s what it looks like from the rest of the world

Rule of law is popular everywhere, but show a place where the has not been corrupted into tyranny and despotism. I would like to live there please.

New Zealand, off the top of my head. If you can’t find examples, you aren’t looking.

Yeah, I've often "joked" with my friends that were in a post-law period, at least at the federal level.

Isn't conspiracy to commit mass murder already a crime? And wouldn't this fit the bill if they were truly ending the world?

From "negligence" if it's a surprise, to "gross negligence" if they could predict it and didn't put barriers in place. In fact they claim their IA can end the world, so they're in charge of pretty good barriers.

"Gross negligence" also does not meet the intent standard for CFAA.

There is such a thing as criminally negligent.

There definitely is. It just doesn't apply to CFAA cases.

> There definitely is. It just doesn't apply to CFAA cases.

Who said anything about CFAA cases? You can be prosecuted under different wiretapping or trespass laws.

You should be able to quickly pull up the statute with a negligence mens rea standard and we can see whether you could prosecute OpenAI under it. My expectation is that you won't find a plausible example.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com