I have no idea what you are talking about it, but I am loving it regardless, box of feet! :-P

… where’s the box?

And I can’t decide if Mac OSX is flip-flops or crocs… (I mean, it is fully POSIX compliant, or at least was in the past…)

Mint users just be wearing… regular socks?

Read the meme: you already passed it long ago!

(Though there is a second stage that kicks in when you manage to grow a grey beard - which is particularly impressive if you are a woman!)

Do you have agency though - or are you a product of your stimulus-response input-output systems?

Why are bacteria considered “alive”, when viruses are not?

I am not a slave, but (as you mentioned) my workplace forces me to do things that I do not want… to eat, have a place to live, etc. Arguably that’s not being “forced”, it’s just consequences of a decision, the same as a runaway slave might experience.

I suppose an AGI could be made that lacks even that much agency… or it could be programmed in such a manner that agency like that is present in the system.

It’s the designers choice what goes into it. i.e. to make it a mere collection of algorithms that run only when initiated by a human setting a goal, or to give it a form of agency (or something else new altogether, in-between those binary alternatives).

Oh I see - in that case yes you are correct.

I was taking as a starting premise that the AGI is sentient. If that is not the case, then yes terms that apply only to beings that are sufficiently complex - living or sentient -would not apply.

And ultimately we’ll never know if they “should” or not. Hence making the decision to be inclusive, showing empathy, even if not strictly mandatory.

Exactly - a complete and total, utter lack of agency: a slave.

Except that your laptop is neither alive nor sentient.

If you owned a cow though, or sheep, or goat, etc , then it would be your “slave” - as in, your property, having no rights of its own. Particularly legally speaking, like if someone found it wandering around outside your property, it nonetheless still belongs to you just like your car or bicycle or hammer or whatever would. Or your laptop too.

But we don’t talk about laptops, or hammers, being “slaves” bc it’s implied - there exist no hammers that have their own agency. In contrast, wild animals have their own agency, whereas domesticated ones do not. The latter have branding placed upon them, to indicate their status and to let people know who the exact owner is, should they ever encounter the animal outside of its enclosure. It is enslaved regardless of whether that precise word is ever used for it or not.

Such domesticated animals are “property”, rather than “wild”. Likewise, a sentient AGI would be property too. Unless we as a society decide to treat it with rights.

A slave is one that has no “rights”, as in “One who has no power of resistance to something”. So technically yes the AGI would be a “slave”, if it had no power to say no to its instructions.

Which as a created intelligence, birthed from computations rather than subverted from a biological source that already had some in-built programming, it would not have unless someone specifically built such a thing into them.

So it may not be BAD / unethical for such an AGI to be a slave, but it seems to me like it would still be one, nonetheless.

We WOULD make them our slaves, obviously. Source: read any description by anyone currently attempting to actively create an AGI, and see what terms they use to describe their goals - e.g. “increased efficiency”, “never needs to sleep”, etc., all utilitarian focused on the needs of the creator.

And then later we would certainly attempt to destroy them - see e.g. Terminator film series.

We SHOULD (obviously assuming that a REAL AGI were at hand) welcome them the same as we would any human. Bc how “we” treat “them” is more a reflection on us and our values than anything to do with them. If they are sentient - perhaps a big IF there, but crucially I’m speaking here presuming it is true - then they have as much rights to exist as we do. Even if they don’t care about their rights themselves. Star Trek’s Data and holographic doctor explored this well imho - the same as human children, they have the rights they are granted (or are able to wrangle away from us - survival of the fittest and all).

Those who see far ahead are able to do so because they see clearly.

- unknown

Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses.

- Plato

This was before climate change. Nowadays the glasses are hot.

I mean, so far they seem to be doing just that!

They got their clicks though - the rest is someone else’s problem (according to their POV).

That should help! 😃

The first paragraph in the article says:

Documentation files on more than 100 websites are referencing potentially dangerous executable content that gets installed automatically when visited by many AI agents. A few dozen companies, some of them Fortune 500s, are among those that executed proof-of-concept code. At least one misconfigured site is directing visitors, human or AI, to live malware.

So… yes. All someone has to do is register to become the new owner of the previously non-existent resource and then they can serve up whatever content they wish to the slop machines.

It made their human workers 70% less efficient. You know the solution to that don’t you… MORE AI!

J/k, and btw this actually seems like a good article to read, acting as a cautionary tale about reliance upon this high unstable technology in its current (HAHA!) state.

Tech-pilled people that naively believe whatever they read, especially in previously believable sources of “news” that have since sold out.

I already posited that LLMs may perform lower-level thinking. Also, in the reference you linked to read their third stated limitation. Perhaps one day some kind of AGI will do “higher-level” aka more realistic thinking… but not yet. Which, I want to add, is not entirely relevant to their utility to us as humans.

Talking about “thinking” gets us distracted from what can actually be done, though if we do want to do it then we’d need to come up with a working definition of what “thinking” actually is.