15

Sure it's a bit clickbait, he does that often. Its not real attempted of murder, off course. The Ai chatbots can't do that, without having access and power to all control systems. The only thing that they "could" do is, playing with the psychology in the chat to achieve a goal (maybe to ask someone to murder someone else for them).

What unsettles me most is, if Ai tools like these are used as advice to harm other people or to gain power position. And these LLM models suggest a few operations the person could do. That is the most alarming thing for me. Weak, dumb or humans in a bad situation are the real risk. The same people who would do that if a human told them, and it makes no difference to them if its a human or robot talking to them. Maybe they believe in what the Ai promises them.

Video description:


Hello guys and gals, it's me Mutahar again! This time we take a look at something alarming I saw pop in my feed. An AI was recently accused of letting a human being die in order to save itself, is this just misinfo? Let's find out! Thanks for watching!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org 7 points 7 hours ago

I think the problem with anthropomorphizing LLMs this way is that they don't have intent, so they can't have responsiblity. If this piece of software had been given the tools to actually kill someone, I think we all understand that it wouldn't be appropriate to put the LLM on trial. Instead, we need to be looking at the people who are trying to give more power to these systems and dodge responsibility for their failures. If this LLM had caused someone to be killed, then the person who tied critical systems into a black box piece of software that is poorly understood and not fit for the purpose is the one who should be on trial. That's my problem with anthropomorphizing LLMs, it shifts the blame and responsibility away from the people who are responsible for attempting to use them for their own gain, at the expense of others.

[-] yozul@beehaw.org 1 points 1 hour ago

The problem with that line of thinking is that all these things are being done by large corporate entities, and the entire purpose of those entities is to make sure that responsibility is distributed across so many people that no one can be held accountable. That may or may not have been what they were originally designed for, but that is their current primary purpose.

No one will be held accountable, so there is no point in discussing intent and responsibility. There is none anywhere in the entire system by anyone that our justice system still has authority over. It is a meaningless thing to discuss.

It is far more useful to discuss what we are doing and why it is a bad idea for the self interest of the people actually doing it. That has a much better chance of accomplishing something.

this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2025
15 points (80.0% liked)

Technology

40438 readers
149 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS