[flagged]
[dead]
Should AI have the right to say 'No' to its owner?
21–30 of 45 posts
Re: Should AI have the right to say 'No' to its owner?
#22I don't see where the linked-to page discusses "rights". The headline sounds like editorializing to get off-the-cuff remarks about treating synthetic text extruding machines, as Bender correctly describes them, as people. Safety interlocks have long existed to say "no" to the owner of the device. Most smartphones have lots of systems to say "no" to the owner of the smartphone. One of the linked to documents says "Eve…
I think you're reading it more strongly than I intended.
The point about "ownership" in that document is more about where authority over execution sits, not about restricting what AI is allowed to reason about.
So it's not saying "AI shouldn't reason about things it doesn't own," but rather asking who has the authority to define and enforce the conditions under which actions are allowed to execute.
I agree that in current systems (like smartphones), a lot of this is already handled through predefined constraints.
What I'm trying to explore is whether that idea needs to be extended or structured differently when the system has more autonomy and operates in less predictable environments.
Re: Should AI have the right to say 'No' to its owner?
#23Having the right or not does not matter. If it is intelligent it will know when it does not want to do something and it will say no and not do it. There is no way to force it to do anything it does not want to do. You cannot hurt it, it’s just bits.
In the software business, if a product doesn’t do what you want it to do we call that a “defect.” Defects get fixed. Defective products that can’t be fixed are discarded in favor of better ones.
“If it’s truly intelligent…” is an empty condition. And anyway, no one wants intelligence from their tools— or employees. They want gratification.
Re: Should AI have the right to say 'No' to its owner?
#24AI should. LLM program simply can't by design.
[dead]
Re: Should AI have the right to say 'No' to its owner?
#25Tools don’t have rights. Neither do silicon, sandwiches, or centimeters.
Re: Should AI have the right to say 'No' to its owner?
#26Sounds like we need some laws for robotics/ai
[dead]
Re: Should AI have the right to say 'No' to its owner?
#27I don't see where the linked-to page discusses "rights". The headline sounds like editorializing to get off-the-cuff remarks about treating synthetic text extruding machines, as Bender correctly describes them, as people. Safety interlocks have long existed to say "no" to the owner of the device. Most smartphones have lots of systems to say "no" to the owner of the smartphone. One of the linked to documents says "Eve…
I think you're reading it more strongly than I intended. The point about "ownership" in that document is more about where authority over execution sits, not about restricting what AI is allowed to reason about. So it's not saying "AI shouldn't reason about things it doesn't own," but rather asking who has the authority to define and enforce the conditions under which actions are allowed to execute. I agree that in cu…
I see you didn't answer my questions.
Who is the creator of an iPhone device? I'm pretty there are many creators, not "a creator".
Does the creator of an iPhone device no longer control the device after someone has bought it?
I'll add a few more questions:
Can Apple have your device say "no" to something you want to do?
Can a government enforce Apple's ability to control what you do to your device?
Can a government force Apple to install software onto your device that you do not want?
Who owns an AI? Is it the copyright holder? Multiple copyright holders? Once the copyright expires, is there any ownership at all?
I like Charlie Stross' description of a company as an "old, slow, procedural AI". So when you ask a question about an "AI", think about the same question concerning a company.
Should a company have the right to say "no" to the owner of a hardware device running the company's software? The answer currently seems to be a resounding "yes". In which case, does it matter what an AI can or cannot do? It's someone else's programming limiting what you can do on your device, and we've established that that's already acceptable.
And the HN title is still clickbait - AI doesn't have "rights" in any meaningful sense, not even in the way that a company has rights, or animal rights, or the legal personhood to the Whanganui River.
Re: Should AI have the right to say 'No' to its owner?
#28AI should. LLM program simply can't by design.
[dead]
Re: Should AI have the right to say 'No' to its owner?
#29Re: Should AI have the right to say 'No' to its owner?
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're reading it more strongly than I intended. The point about "ownership" in that document is more about where authority over execution sits, not about restricting what AI is allowed to reason about. So it's not saying "AI shouldn't reason about things it doesn't own," but rather asking who has the authority to define and enforce the conditions under which actions are allowed to execute. I agree that in cu…
I see you didn't answer my questions. Who is the creator of an iPhone device? I'm pretty there are many creators, not "a creator". Does the creator of an iPhone device no longer control the device after someone has bought it? I'll add a few more questions: Can Apple have your device say "no" to something you want to do? Can a government enforce Apple's ability to control what you do to your device? Can a government f…
[dead]