Comment by sobiolite
17 days ago
Computers can make decisions: Almost everyone reading this will have a implemented an if-else statement or equivalent control flow. That is a decision made by a computer on data it receives at runtime. You can argue that it's different, because we fully understand the logic of such a statement, whereas LLMs are closer to a black-box. But at Turing observed, in practice we are frequently surprised by the output of complex algorithms, even those we have authored ourselves. The more difficult the task, the more complex the algorithm we need to achieve it, and the more unexpected behaviour can emerge from it. In that way, LLMs are just the latest, highest point on a rising line of algorithmic capability and complexity.
We can (and should) try to improve AI safety and alignment, but perfect safety is probably impossible without losing the capabilities that make AI unique. Black-and-white positions that insist anyone creating or using an AI is responsible for anything it does wrong under any circumstances are also unrealistic. AI is a general purpose technology, and we have always accepted that it is not practical for suppliers to envisage and constrain every downstream use: Car manufacturers cannot prevent every instance of mechanical failure, nor can they stop cars being used in crime.
What you're missing is that "making decisions" isn't the same as being technically capable of making a selection.
Making decisions means taking responsibility.[0] This is really all there is to it -- a computer cannot decide, not because humans are uniquely able to make a choice based on input, but because a computer cannot be responsible. You can decide to do something based on the output of the computer, but that's you deciding to do that. At any point where a computer appears to have made a decision, someone else was behind it. You can complicate this, randomise stuff, obfuscate things, etc. but ultimately either the computer was set in motion by a person, or it malfunctioned. The malfunctioning computer thing is quite interesting but it's not going to change the outcome.
LLMs ("AI" today) have not changed this. It's still just software, it's still doing what it's told. Surprising future technologies may alter this, but there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that's a likely future and it certainly is not the case today.
> Black-and-white positions that insist anyone creating or using an AI is responsible for anything it does wrong under any circumstances are also unrealistic.
At this point in time, AI is just a piece of software. It doesn't matter how useful it is or not. It's just software. We can and should treat it like software. So to evaluate when/where/how someone should (or should not) be held responsible for something that "the AI did", we can start at the same point as we would for any other vendor/creator/user of a piece of software. I'm not going to get into that -- my point is that the framework exists. And yes, sure, maybe that framework needs some tweaks in consideration of the new software, that's OK. The starting point should still be in reality, where software is software.
[0] Yes, this is nuanced, things go wrong, different situations, etc. etc.
> At any point where a computer appears to have made a decision, someone else was behind it.
Are you arguing that not computers are best at chess, but that whichever human last updated the chess algorithm is actually the reigning chess champion?
Why not the person who thought to stage the match? They had arguably more input in the win.
I disagree. Computers cannot make judgemental decisions about course of action, they can only execute predefined courses of action. The software developer made a series of decisions. The computer just carried those out.
These discussions around decision-making seem to ignore what a "decision" is. How does a human being make a decision? And what exactly is happening when a person decides to do something?
Suppose I check the weather forecast 5 mins before leaving the house, and it says 95% chance of rain today. Do I bring or not bring an umbrella?
I would bring an umbrella. I would made that decision to bring an umbrella. But my decision to do that is (at least partially) the result of the weather forecast. The causal chain is (atmospheric conditions -> weather forecasters -> my decision). Did the weather forecaster just "program" me? Did the water molecules moving in the sky just "program" the weather forecaster?
My answer to these questions is as follows: a decision, and my understanding of the concept/definition of a "decision", refers to exactly the processes where I do something as a result of external influence/programming, rather than just internal thought/processing. I could think really hard and imagine myself moving forward at 100 meters per second, or even beyond the speed of light, but in reality, no matter how hard my neurons fire to imagine that scenario, my actions are still physically constrained. Such physical constraints influence our every decision. That is the "programming" part. Everyone and everything "programs"/influences everything else.
That said, perhaps the particles which make up my brain/body has its own whimsy. Perhaps there is a hidden local random number generator that samples from the distribution of possible future states available to this particular clump of matter that is "I".
How different is this from a computer running a non-deterministic program such as an LLM-based AI agent? Remember, every token sampling involves an RNG. They don't perform as well or feel as creative and human-like when deterministically sampled.
This isn't an excuse for anyone, especially not for Anthropic or OpenAI. But I think these are questions we ought to ask if we are to honestly discuss liability and perhaps even personhood for AIs that are increasingly autonomous.
The technical/technological nature of the system that made the choice is irrelevant. That is, I think it's right to ignore what a decision is, as you put it. The ability to make decisions is not the ability to choose -- it's the ability, right, privelege, obligation, expectation to take responsibility.
Discussing anything like personhood for AI is really jumping the gun.
The chatbot is software. The software does what it is told. It performs tasks requested of it by the user/operator in line with the (designed, ) immplemented functionality of the code. If the software fails to do what it is told, the vendor has not provided working software. If an operator controlling some software does not do so in a reasonable, safe manner, the operator is negligent. If damages result from such failures or actions, the people who made the decisions that led to that are the people who are responsible.
It does not matter how complex the software is: if a vendor of some software doesn't expect it fail in costly ways because it's too complex or hard to understand, that is a (legal, ethical, moral) failure of the vendor.
It does not matter how autonomous it is: an autonomous sprinkler system that floods the neighbour's basement is not held liable for the damages. The owner, installer, vendor, etc. is. -- maybe the neighbour even did(n't) something wrong!
In the context of free will (disregarding the full context here for a moment), this is where it actually gets interesting.
Theologists and philosophers alike have been thinking about the problem what "free will" even means exactly because of this, when there are no preconditions informing my decision, what does "free will" even mean?
In German, I have heard this being framed as "bedingt freier" versus "unbedingt freier Wille".
As a thought experiment, it makes a very good argument for a deterministic world view, quantum woo aside.
When there are no reasons for what I decide, what are my decisions based on? A whim? Chance? My personal taste? Well, my personal taste is a reason. And all reasons come from somewhere, right?
On the other hand, thinking of my decisions as without preconditions: what does that give me?
Decisions without rationale?
Sure, one can make everything more fuzzy by introducing probablities, even real chance if you like.
But also then, total determinism with hidden information is an immune theory that cannot be refuted, so it explains nothing.
But was does true randomness help with? I'd say, from a philosophical perspective, it doesn't bring any interesting argument to the table.
So this leaves us with free will as the only useful way of understanding ourselves and our role in the world, but on the other hand, it seems like a sneaky device for ourselves to ignore the infinitely confusing thought of considering ourselves determined by our circumstances (which, as a thought, already has real side-effects, too).
> they can only execute predefined courses of action.
Even in near trivial cases such as Game Of Life (just a handful of rules), the fact that a <machine> technically carries out deterministic actions is already quite meaningless.
computers compute.
compute /kəm-pyoo͞t′/ intransitive verb
decide /dĭ-sīd′/ intransitive verb
I would agree.
The programmer, architect, CIO, engineer, etc. made the decisions, reached the conclusions, reasoned about the problem.
In the case of an AI vibe coder, the collective published works of said programmers, architects, CIO, engineer, etcs reasoning was applied to the vibe coders question, itself a result of reasoning. AI is still just calculating.
Digital computers ( the ones I assume we are talking about ) are turing machines.
Electronic tape readers.
Modern player pianos. V
Humans can make decisions because they have a random number generator inside of them, and therefore computers cannot? Or are you making a free-will argument based on some mystical substance in a human brain? You need to think this through a bit more.
IKEA provides mounting brackets and discloses safety risks but a child may still pull it from the wall and be crushed under its weight.
Only barbarians would attempt a farcical judgement of law or punish the bookcase.
Thats what it comes down to.
And it's the same for humans: humans cannot make judgemental decisions about course of action. Evolution made a series of decisions. Humans are just carrying those out.
The universe is deterministic when consciousness is not present
What evidence do you have that consciousness is related to determinism?
That's not how we understand the laws of quantum physics.
Probably even when it is.
"judgemental" is load-bearing in that claim.
>That is a decision made by a computer on data it receives at runtime.
I disagree. A light bulb is on if and only if it is supplied electricity. With a switch, I have control over input of electricity. The bulb is on if and only if the switch is toggled on. The bulb isn't deciding whether or not to be on based on the if-statement represented by the switch. It just is on or is off depending on conditions.
To make it more dynamic I can replace the switch with a motion sensor. The light is now on if and only if motion is detected. The light is not deciding to be on but must be on as required by the motion sensor toggling the flow of electricity. The light either is or isn't on depending on the conditions.
If I write an if condition that prints true if there are more than ten files in a folder, and then a second that places a random selection of up to 20 files in the folder before deleting them every second, the if function will be true roughly half of the time. The function either is or isn't true based on conditions.
All of the decisions made for and involving both the lights and the if condition were made before they existed. Once implemented, those decisions will remain true until some force acts upon them (later conditions or decisions). While the initial decisions (to wire the light, to write the if condition) are true, the system itself makes no decisions. Either systems current condition depends entirely upon the decisions made before it existed.
Saying an if-condition makes decisions is like saying a bicycle decides to fall down when running out of momentum or encountering an obstacle.
Running an if/else written condition is not making a decision, it's following a rule.
An if-else is executing a decision premade by a programmer.
You missed the point. Computers can make decisions, but we shouldn't let them.
This is because they can't take the blame, they can't be held responsible.
The original article feeds precisely this misreading. It quotes the old IBM adage ‘a computer MUST never make management decisions’ (my emphasis) but describes it in its headline as ‘a computer CAN not make decisions’ (my emphasis)
These are not the same, and this misinterpretation of the author’s intent inevitably follows.
CAN NOT is horribly ambiguous in English which is why RFCs use MUST and MAY.
In casual speech someone might say “you can’t park there” but that’s not true. They might mean “you must not park there” or “you should not park there” but the only reason they are telling you is because you CAN park there.
> CAN NOT is horribly ambiguous in English which is why RFCs use MUST and MAY.
Is it ?
I thought 'can' denotes a possibility, while 'not' negatates it ?
4 replies →
More to the point, a simple control flow statement is really a decision made by the person who programmed the computer, not made by the computer.
Though LLMs make this all fuzzy it's still basically the same thing. LLMs didn't decide to make a toxic culture of LLM use, people did. They were told that it was necessary to save themselves.
Computers are operated to (either through command or through training) make decisions. Liability for the consequences of the decisions obviously lies on the operator of the computer that made the decisions. Or at least that should be obvious.
you seem to confuse carrying decisions with making decisions