I agree that it is probably best to speak nicely to them, but, I’m not so sure about the “It’s not like it’s their fault.” justification for this? Not that I think it is their fault. Just, I don’t think the reason to treat these models well is for their sake, but for ours. I don’t think these models have a well-being (y’know, probably..) but when one interacts with one, one often feels as if it does, and it is best to treat [things that one feels like has a well-being] well (or, in a way that would be treating it well if it did have a well-being).
Like, if someone mistakes a manikin or scarecrow for an innocent person, and takes action in an attempt to harm that imagined person (e.g. they try to mug the imagined person), they’ve still done something wrong, even though the person they intended to wrong never actually existed.
I guess maybe it kind of depends how strongly and deeply one feels as if the manikin/scarecrow/chatbot is a person? If one is playing make believe using scarecrow, role playing as a mugger, but only as a game, then that’s probably fine I guess. Like, I don’t want to say that it is immoral to play an evil character in a D&D campaign; I don’t think that’s true.
But if one is messing with some ants, and one conceives of oneself as “torturing some ants”, I think one is fairly likely doing something wrong even though I don’t think the ants have a well-being, and there’s nothing wrong with killing a bunch of ants. And I think this is still true even if one has the belief “ants don’t actually have a well-being” at the same time as one conceives of what one is doing as “torturing some ants”.
I suppose when I say, "It's not like its their fault", I'm more saying that expressing any frustration you feel towards an imagined AI personhood is wasted effort.
Claude Code has analytics for when you swear at it, so in a sense it does learn, in the same very indirect way that downvoting responses might cause an employee to write a new RL testcase in a future model.
I don’t see why any of those should be exonerating?
Also, I feel like “nothing wrong if it does happen” regarding shooting someone, is the wrong perspective. If shooting someone is necessary, then it is necessary, but that doesn’t mean nothing went wrong. Anytime someone gets shot is a time something has gone wrong.
Yes, something has gone wrong: someone threatened to kill me and my family, and apparently the only way to stop them from doing so was to kill them. That may be the best option available, but it is still a tragedy.
What is the smallest level of additional security such that, if you assumed that the TSA only provides that much additional security over the alternative of not having them, you would regard it as worth it?
And, is the actual amount of security provided greater than that amount?
Hm. It shouldn’t be too hard to add something to models to make them do that, right? I guess for that they would need to know the user’s time zone?
Can one typically determine a user’s timezone in JavaScript without getting permissions? I feel like probably yes?
(I’m not imagining something that would strictly cut the user off, just something that would end messages with a suggestion to go to bed, and saying that it will be there in the morning.)
Chatbots already have memory, and mine already knows my schedule and location. It doesn't even need to say anything directly, maybe just shorter replies, less enthusiasm for opening new topics. Letting conversation wind down naturally. I also like the idea of continuing topics in the morning, so if you write down your thoughts/worries, it could say "don't worry about this, we can discuss this next morning".
I know a few people who work 3rd shift. That is people who good reason to be up all night in their local timezone. They all sleep during times when everyone else around them is awake. While this is a small minority, this is enough that your scheme will not work.
I actually was considering those people. That’s part of why I suggested it shouldn’t be a hard cut-off, but just adding to the end of the messages.
Of course, one could add some sort of daily schedule feature thing so that if one has a different sleep schedule, one can specify that, but that would be more work to implement.
> By definition you cannot have someone who is the most informed about everything.
This is not true-by-definition . It may be true, but not by-definition. If there were an omniscient person, they would be the most informed about everything.
Like, if someone mistakes a manikin or scarecrow for an innocent person, and takes action in an attempt to harm that imagined person (e.g. they try to mug the imagined person), they’ve still done something wrong, even though the person they intended to wrong never actually existed.
I guess maybe it kind of depends how strongly and deeply one feels as if the manikin/scarecrow/chatbot is a person? If one is playing make believe using scarecrow, role playing as a mugger, but only as a game, then that’s probably fine I guess. Like, I don’t want to say that it is immoral to play an evil character in a D&D campaign; I don’t think that’s true.
But if one is messing with some ants, and one conceives of oneself as “torturing some ants”, I think one is fairly likely doing something wrong even though I don’t think the ants have a well-being, and there’s nothing wrong with killing a bunch of ants. And I think this is still true even if one has the belief “ants don’t actually have a well-being” at the same time as one conceives of what one is doing as “torturing some ants”.
reply