Comment by roenxi
6 hours ago
I shudder to think what one man with a texta could do here. It isn't that hard to turn the acyclic graph into a cyclic one.
This is quite a bad argument, somewhat akin to "small drones can't kill anyone because there are no weapons on them!" back 20 years ago. Well, ok. So what if someone adds the thing that is missing? And there is no reason to think that a stochastic parrot can't go rogue, the evidence is a stochastic parrot can engage in any intellectual activity we care to define and benchmark.
There is a really good discussion on exactly this analogy in the Jonas paper I posted in a top-level comment. Jonas considers Torpedoes (starting on p. 182, section III). Unfortunately too long to post here. But he asks where to locate purpose and agency in these automated systems. So as with the article, the question is less in "can these things be dangerous" but more where does the agency and intent reside. The answer is of course they can be used as weapons, but the intent and motivation does not really reside in the mechanism (drone, torpedo, AI agent), but in the humans behind them. The fallacy is trying to attribute full autonomy (and hence responsibility).