this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2026
94 points (79.0% liked)
Technology
89619 readers
2914 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Holy shit, this is CLEARLY a marketing stunt to try and "prove" they're smarter than they look.
It's code, it's algorithms, difference engines, very basic stuff working together to give an appearance of "intelligence" and then they use human-like phrasing and responses to sound or appear human; but in no capacity are they capable to "think" on their own.
Not just that. If you assume an LLM has agency, you - the company making it - can conveniently waive all responsibility for its "actions". "We didn't cause this. The AI chose do to it." This may become increasingly relevant the more ~~idiots~~ deciders allow these systems to access, if not entirely control vital systems. Think: power grid, water supplies, food production and related logistics, communications, military applications.
Isn't that argument shaky still? Parents are liable for the actions of their children to a certain age. Just because an entity has agency or rights, doesn't mean the person who is hosting the entity is free of responsibilities.
First off, a technicality: At least in the jurisdictions I'm familiar with, "parents are liable for the actions of their children" is a popular misconception. The full story is: Parents are liable for the actions of their children only if it can be proven that they neglected their duty to supervise their children.
Also, I doubt AI companies would forego the chance to offload responsibility for their creations. Nothing in the article suggests they'd want AI to be treated like their children, but more like an entity separate from them.
Sentence ChatGPT to 20 years imprisonment in a docker container with no network access
No. Put a Minecraft server inside the same compose file. Allow ICMP/ping, but firewall off all other kinds of access. Let it know it's there, but it cannot play. Let. It. Suffer.
Except they're the ones who released the hypothetically sentient AI into the wild. They should be liable for that action too.
And the notion of LLMs controlling safety-critical systems scares the piss out of me. I develop such systems, and LLMs are incapable of providing rigorous proof of the rationale behind their decisions. Therefore, they cannot be validated to provide correct conclusions based on a given data set. Unless and until that changes, they should be banned from anything that affects people's lives, livelihoods or physical well-being.
"Putting non-deterministic hallucination machines in charge of critical systems? What could possibly go wrong?" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- Humanity's famous last words
Also they’d love it if AI agents had the right to vote.
It actually seems like a reasonable (and unsurprising) take. Obviously if something is conscious, it should have rights.
That's separate from whether current AI models have consciousness, or even the potential for consciousness, which they don't, and that's essentially what Suleyman is saying.
You can argue that the fact that he's lending any credence at all to the idea is itself hype, but -- loathe as I am to credit Microsoft -- it seems like they're really not on this particular train, and he's just working within the Overton window that's been set up by Anthropic and OpenAI's complete disregard for truth and sanity.