> when one starts wishing (even actively lobbying) for a legal personhood of AI > models. This seems to be the case here. Kaczynski warned about this. It is > also laughable, and a recipe for disaster, to accord infallible trust in some > chosen technologists.
Does the argument hold up after AI becomes indistinguishable from human? Smart contracts do seem like a way forward though. The rate of technological change is faster than we can keep up with now, so don't take anything for granted! On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 9:07 PM Shashank Yadav <[email protected]> wrote: > > Assuming that the only way to make a machine safe and useful is by offering > it a compensation is turbocharged anthropomorphism betraying particular > leanings. We have smart contracts for such scenarios (more or less, if things > are happening on computer networks). Problem arises when one starts wishing > (even actively lobbying) for a legal personhood of AI models. This seems to > be the case here. Kaczynski warned about this. It is also laughable, and a > recipe for disaster, to accord infallible trust in some chosen technologists. > > > regards, Shashank > The task is not impossible. > > > > > > ---- On Tue, 01 Jul 2025 04:06:17 +0530 Matt Mahoney > <[email protected]> wrote --- > > Does this even make sense? Should AI be compensated for doing what we want it > to do? > > https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/vxfEtbCwmZKu9hiNr/proposal-for-making-credible-commitments-to-ais > > -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] > > > > Artificial General Intelligence List / AGI / see discussions + participants + > delivery options Permalink ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tba3441daa3852b75-M724640908be9a986eabce813 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
