[ddingus]

Yes they are. Most people will.

They are not the same because an LLM is a construct. It is not a living entity with agency, motive, and all the things the law was intended for.

We will see new law as this tech develops.

For an analogy, many people call infringement theft and they are wrong to do so.

They will focus on the someone getting something without having followed the right process part while ignoring the equally important someone else being denied the use of, or loss of property part.

The former is an element in common between theft and infringement. And it is compelling!

But, the real meat in theft is all about people losing property! And that is not common at all.

This AI thing is similar. The common elements are super compelling.

But it just won't be about that in the end. It will be all about the details unique to AI code.

[gaganyaan]

Using the word "construct" isn't adding anything to the conversation. If we bioengineer a sentient human, would you feel OK torturing it because it's "just a construct"? If that's unethical to you, how about half meat and half silicon? How much silicon is too much silicon and makes torture OK?

> Most people will [privilege meat]

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals, and you know it". I agree that humans are likely to pass bad laws, because we are mostly just dumb, panicky dangerous animals in the end. That's different than asking an internet commentor why they're being so confident in their opinions though.

[ddingus]

If we bioengineer:

Full stop. We've not done that yet. When we do, we can revisit the law / discussion.

We can remedy "construct" this way:

Your engineered human would be a being. Being a being is one primary difference between us and these LLM things we are toying with right now.

And yes, beings are absolutely going to value themselves over non beings. It makes perfect sense to do so.

These LLM entities are not beings. That's fundamental. And it's why an extremely large number of other beings are going to find your comment laughable. I did!

You are attempting to simplify things too much to be meaningful.

[gaganyaan]

Define "being". If it's so fundamental, it should be pretty easy, no?

And I'd like if this were simple. Unfortunately there's too many people throwing around over-simplifications like "They are not the same because an LLM is a construct" or "These LLM entities are not beings". If you'll excuse the comparison, it's like arguing with theists that can't reason about their ideological foundations, but can provide specious soundbites in spades.

[ddingus]

It is easy!!

First and foremost:

A being is a living thing with a will to survive, need for food, and a corporeal existence, in other words, is born, lives for a time, then dies.

Secondly, beings are unique. Each one has a state that ends when they do and begins when they do. So far, we are unable to copy this state. Maybe we will one day, but that day, should there ever be one, is far away. We will live our lives never seeing this come to pass.

Finally, beings have agency. They do not require prompting.

[gaganyaan]

So these jellyfish aren't "beings" because they can live forever? Or do they magically become "beings" when they die?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_dohrnii

Also twice now you've said the equivalent of "it hasn't happened yet so no need to think about the implications". Respectfully, I think you need to ponder your arguments a bit more carefully. Cheers.

[ddingus]

Of course they are beings!

They've got a few fantastic attributes, lots of different beings do. You know the little water bear things are tough as nails! You can freeze them for for a century wake them up and they'll crawl around like nothing happened.

Naked mole rats don't get any form of cancer. All kinds of things the beans present in the world that doesn't affect the definition at all.

You didn't gain any ground with that.

And I will point out, it is you who has the burden in this whole conversation. I am clearly in the majority if you want things with what I've said. And I will absolutely privilege meets face over silicon any day, for the reasons I've given.

You, on the other hand, have a hell of a sales job ahead of you. Good luck maybe this little exchange helped a bit take care

[peoplefromibiza]

> Or do they magically become "beings" when they die?

quoting from your link

although in practice individuals can still die. In nature, most Turritopsis dohrnii are likely to succumb to predation or disease in the medusa stage without reverting to the polyp form

This sentence does not apply to an LLM.

Also, you can copy an LLM state and training data and you will have an equivalent LLM, you can't copy the state of a living being.

Mostly because a big chunk of the state is experience, like for example you take that jellyfish, cut one of its tentacles and it will be scarred for life (immortal or not). That can't be copied and most likely never will.

[ddingus]

Regarding the copying of a being state, I'm not really sure that's ever even going to be possible.

So for the sake of argument I'll just amend that and say we can't copy their state. Each being is unique and that's it. They aren't something we copy.

And yes that means all of us that thinks somehow they're going to get downloaded into a computer? I'll say it right here and now that's not going to fucking happen.