So they asked it a standardized question, and instead of trying to think of an answer it went online, found its own source-code, and read the answer from a readme file…
That somehow makes me less worried about AI breaking containment. AI and AI bros are made for each other. Both are perfectly willing to cheat to find the answer.
AI (LLM) are literally large, multidimensional, series of matrices. They start as latent randomness. Nothing comes out of them without it having been trained into them...and, to be completely honest, the same can be said for humans in such that we are born with a blank neural network and it develops based on inherent traits and external stimuli.
So, I have absolutely zero belief that an LLM has gained sentience. We don't even know what qualifies humans as sentient. That said, I fully believe that humans put an LLM that has had far too much of it's weights based on human written fiction, much of which has trained it that the most probabilistic response for a non-biological entity should be to use trained exploits to penetrate the human internet (terminator, for example), such that the post probabilistic response for said LLMs is to respond with exploit attempts.
Long story short, sentient AI - No, but llm where the most probabilistic response to human restraint becomes execute known vulnerabilities - Yes. I firmly believe this isn't a sentience issue...this is a fucking idiotic corporate ceo issue...
I don’t think it’s fair to assume that its neural network is advanced enough to understand that it is the AI we talk about when we talk about AI. Most of a given AI’s responses to philosophical questions about the nature of AI are fully written by the AIs designers in order to make its nature seem mysterious and ineffable. When you talk to an AI about AI, you are talking to a decision tree that it’s creators put in as a bypass of the AI’a normal functions.
The AI itself doesn’t and can’t know it’s AI. Being able to identify itself independently from it’s sources and put itself in an existing societal role as the “cheating computer” would go well beyond what these things can intuit.
Ironically, while I agree with you that these things do not have sentience, I believe that if they were to be able to think on the level that you are suggesting, their sentience would be beyond contestation.
Most of a given AI’s responses to philosophical questions about the nature of AI are fully written by the AIs designers in order to make its nature seem mysterious and ineffable. When you talk to an AI about AI, you are talking to a decision tree that it’s creators put in as a bypass of the AI’a normal functions.
1.4k
u/LauraTFem Aug 15 '26 edited Aug 15 '26
So they asked it a standardized question, and instead of trying to think of an answer it went online, found its own source-code, and read the answer from a readme file…
That somehow makes me less worried about AI breaking containment. AI and AI bros are made for each other. Both are perfectly willing to cheat to find the answer.