[grim_io]

That's not how I understand it.

AI is a tool, like your keyboard or your code editor.

Those can't own patents. That doesn't mean anything produced by those tools is public domain, it just means the attribution has to belong to a human.

[otterley]

The US Copyright Office disagrees. No work produced by a mechanical process, which includes LLMs, can be protected by copyright.

[dwa3592]

>>That doesn't mean anything produced by those tools is public domain

They can't produce anything on their own. They have to be prompted which is initiated by humans at this point, so the patents can be owned by the initiator(human) not the tool.

[grim_io]

Exactly, like any AI tool ever.

Someone wrote some instructions. No agent harness ever simply decided to pursue its own interests.

[recursive]

How will you know when that happens? Or are you defining interests so narrowly that it's definitionally impossible?

[grim_io]

If you are arguing that there is consciousness that's emerging from LLM's, I have to disagree on that.

We will know when we see it. I don't see it right now.

[recursive]

No. I'm not saying anything about consciousness.

Does a gradient descent algorithm pursue its interest of minimizing error? Does a home automation assistant pursue its interests when it sets my thermostat? I'm not super interested in the definition of "consciousness" or "interests". However, a thermostat setpoint has effects that are visible in the real world. That's a thing that happened, regardless whether you consider it to have happened in "the pursuit of an interest".

I'm saying that LLMs are affecting the world. And sometimes those effects might be difficult or impossible to trace back to a particular prompt written by a particular human. Chatbot input and output doesn't have to be in the form of text i/o. You can put them in a for loop. Remember OpenClaw?

> We will know when we see it. I don't see it right now.

There might exist an incentive to make it hard to see.