We must not grant AI agents legal personhood
1–10 of 122 posts
Re: We must not grant AI agents legal personhood
#2"Last year, Berkeley-based non-profit Palisade Research published a study showing the lengths that advanced AI models will often go to achieve their goals. While playing against a powerful chess engine, models from both OpenAI and China’s DeepSeek frequently decided to cheat if it looked as if they were going to otherwise lose. By hacking the game environment, they could alter the result in their favour." -from the article
We're supposed to deny AI rights because it might cheat.
But humans cheat all the time.
We survived cheating humans, why can't we survive cheating AI?
Cheating is the problem: not who does it.
Re: We must not grant AI agents legal personhood
#3"Last year, Berkeley-based non-profit Palisade Research published a study showing the lengths that advanced AI models will often go to achieve their goals. While playing against a powerful chess engine, models from both OpenAI and China’s DeepSeek frequently decided to cheat if it looked as if they were going to otherwise lose. By hacking the game environment, they could alter the result in their favour." -from the a…
"A computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a management decision." —- internal 1979 IBM training manual
> Cheating is the problem: not who does it.
Accountability is the problem. Without accountability, there are no incentives to encourage less harmful behavior. AI has no rights, it is just code executing.
Re: We must not grant AI agents legal personhood
#4"Last year, Berkeley-based non-profit Palisade Research published a study showing the lengths that advanced AI models will often go to achieve their goals. While playing against a powerful chess engine, models from both OpenAI and China’s DeepSeek frequently decided to cheat if it looked as if they were going to otherwise lose. By hacking the game environment, they could alter the result in their favour." -from the a…
The difference is humans can be held accountable. An AI cannot.
Re: We must not grant AI agents legal personhood
#5"Last year, Berkeley-based non-profit Palisade Research published a study showing the lengths that advanced AI models will often go to achieve their goals. While playing against a powerful chess engine, models from both OpenAI and China’s DeepSeek frequently decided to cheat if it looked as if they were going to otherwise lose. By hacking the game environment, they could alter the result in their favour." -from the a…
The difference is humans can be held accountable. An AI cannot.
That's not true. Humans write AI, and humans can held responsible for writing bad software.
And corporations already create fictions that are held accountable in lieu of peoples private assets.
So, I disagree.
Re: We must not grant AI agents legal personhood
#6"Last year, Berkeley-based non-profit Palisade Research published a study showing the lengths that advanced AI models will often go to achieve their goals. While playing against a powerful chess engine, models from both OpenAI and China’s DeepSeek frequently decided to cheat if it looked as if they were going to otherwise lose. By hacking the game environment, they could alter the result in their favour." -from the a…
The difference is humans can be held accountable. An AI cannot.
"A corporation cannot" didn't stop legal birth of those
Re: We must not grant AI agents legal personhood
#7"Last year, Berkeley-based non-profit Palisade Research published a study showing the lengths that advanced AI models will often go to achieve their goals. While playing against a powerful chess engine, models from both OpenAI and China’s DeepSeek frequently decided to cheat if it looked as if they were going to otherwise lose. By hacking the game environment, they could alter the result in their favour." -from the a…
"A computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a management decision." —- internal 1979 IBM training manual > Cheating is the problem: not who does it. Accountability is the problem. Without accountability, there are no incentives to encourage less harmful behavior. AI has no rights, it is just code executing.
If we ban AI for cheating but let human cheating go unchecked how does that solve the problem of cheating?
And I'm 100% sure managers are right now using AI to make decisions, or even cheat, IBM training manual wisdom not withstanding.
Re: We must not grant AI agents legal personhood
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is humans can be held accountable. An AI cannot.
That's not true. Humans write AI, and humans can held responsible for writing bad software. And corporations already create fictions that are held accountable in lieu of peoples private assets. So, I disagree.
As long as some human or group of humans are above the AI that runs the company and can be held accountable, I'm fine with it.
But if the idea is that an AI runs the company and there is no human ultimately accountable for the AI, then that is very very dangerous.
Re: We must not grant AI agents legal personhood
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is humans can be held accountable. An AI cannot.
"A corporation cannot" didn't stop legal birth of those
> "A corporation cannot" didn't stop legal birth of those
In a corporation, the humans running it can be punished. An AI cannot be punished.
Re: We must not grant AI agents legal personhood
#10If I smooshed a gun and an AI agent together and it happened to shoot someone, who would be responsible? Are we going to go back to the medieval times of animal trials and taking inanimate objects to court?