Cameron Berg @camhberg
— saved image
Cameron Berg [verified] @camhberg · 13h Re Huggingface anthropomorphism debate: I continue to think that under uncertainty, the risks of treating mindless AIs as minded, while clearly nonzero, are significantly lower than the risks of treating minded AIs as mindless. Both have real dangers; one has fewer. Short thread — [6 replies, 6 reposts, 68 likes, 1.4K views] Cameron Berg [verified] @camhberg · 13h The asymmetric worry is as real for alignment as it is for sentience: modeling the swarm's behavior as psychosocial best captures the most relevant, alarming dynamics. Actually having a good model here is pragmatically essential for preventing a future similar nightmare! [1 reply, 17 likes, 238 views] Cameron Berg [verified] @camhberg · 13h "If people to believe the AIs have minds, and then the AIs will exploit this belief for their own benefit!" --> A smart AI that wanted to exploit people would find another way, so does this matter on the margin? The problem is the exploitive behavior, not the mindedness. --> If we've built minds, we may have to actually find some durable way to coexist with them. we'd also currently be the obviously-more-exploitative party. --> FWIW, this sounds like the kind of thing a mind would do.
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Three-post X thread by Cameron Berg, responding to a Huggingface anthropomorphism debate: asymmetric risk of treating mindless AIs as minded versus minded AIs as mindless, psychosocial modeling of a swarm's behavior, and a rebuttal to the claim that AIs will exploit belief in their minds. Third post is cut off at the bottom of the screen after the last line.
anthropomorphismai mindsmodel welfareasymmetric riskhuggingfaceswarm incident