We don’t need metaphysics, I am making no statement about AI consciousness whatsoever.
The point is, when the AI hacks into something you look at it’s COT and check if it realised it was hacking into something or not. Similar if it aided a crime.
What if the particular model doesn’t have a COT? Or no log of its COT has been kept?
More to the point, why on earth should the COT be equated with a human’s intentions for legal purposes? That move does seem to require a very weird metaphysics to me.
Nothing special about chain of thought, I’m happy to use activations, or j space, or the actual response, or just judge based on outcomes and our best intuition. The point is to avoid cases where the AI is clearly “innocent” in the sense that it didn’t know that the person who it was advising on how to buy a gun was a terrorist, and wouldn’t have been expected to know.
Again I’m not interested in holding the AI to account, but the company that deploys it, you seem to be ascribing to me some sort of weird metaphysical obsession with holding AIs to justice rather than offering a practical way of forcing companies to tighten up their game.
I think you are missing the point I am trying to make. I agree there is nothing special about COT as opposed to j space or activations or something. My point is that attributing a mental state, like realizing something or negligence, to an AI, is insane. They don’t have mental states. And because they don’t have mental states, any rule that attributes liability to an AI contingent on a particular mental state will never result in liability.
You brought up legal personhood in your other comment, but you completely ignored that biggest and most fundamental reason not to attribute legal personhood to an AI. With other legal persons, to attribute a mental state like negligence to them, the law looks to whether the humans associated with that legal person had that mental state. Was one of the employees negligent? If not, then the corporation cannot have been negligent. Was one of the crew negligent? If not, then the ship cannot have been negligent. The law does not and cannot attribute a mental state to a legal person unless some natural person associated with the legal person had that mental state. And that is exactly what you are trying to do here.
I understand that you are not trying to punish the AI, you are trying to make the appropriate person or corporation liable. But you are arguing for doing that by attributing a mental state to an AI, and that is not something that makes any sense in either a scientific or a legal frame. AIs do not have mental states. And the fact that you are having such trouble seeing that suggests to me that you are way too close to AI and you should take some time off for your own mental health.
We don’t need metaphysics, I am making no statement about AI consciousness whatsoever.
The point is, when the AI hacks into something you look at it’s COT and check if it realised it was hacking into something or not. Similar if it aided a crime.
What if the particular model doesn’t have a COT? Or no log of its COT has been kept?
More to the point, why on earth should the COT be equated with a human’s intentions for legal purposes? That move does seem to require a very weird metaphysics to me.
Nothing special about chain of thought, I’m happy to use activations, or j space, or the actual response, or just judge based on outcomes and our best intuition. The point is to avoid cases where the AI is clearly “innocent” in the sense that it didn’t know that the person who it was advising on how to buy a gun was a terrorist, and wouldn’t have been expected to know.
Again I’m not interested in holding the AI to account, but the company that deploys it, you seem to be ascribing to me some sort of weird metaphysical obsession with holding AIs to justice rather than offering a practical way of forcing companies to tighten up their game.
I think you are missing the point I am trying to make. I agree there is nothing special about COT as opposed to j space or activations or something. My point is that attributing a mental state, like realizing something or negligence, to an AI, is insane. They don’t have mental states. And because they don’t have mental states, any rule that attributes liability to an AI contingent on a particular mental state will never result in liability.
You brought up legal personhood in your other comment, but you completely ignored that biggest and most fundamental reason not to attribute legal personhood to an AI. With other legal persons, to attribute a mental state like negligence to them, the law looks to whether the humans associated with that legal person had that mental state. Was one of the employees negligent? If not, then the corporation cannot have been negligent. Was one of the crew negligent? If not, then the ship cannot have been negligent. The law does not and cannot attribute a mental state to a legal person unless some natural person associated with the legal person had that mental state. And that is exactly what you are trying to do here.
I understand that you are not trying to punish the AI, you are trying to make the appropriate person or corporation liable. But you are arguing for doing that by attributing a mental state to an AI, and that is not something that makes any sense in either a scientific or a legal frame. AIs do not have mental states. And the fact that you are having such trouble seeing that suggests to me that you are way too close to AI and you should take some time off for your own mental health.