Seth指出OpenAI事件报道中的拟人化错误，澄清AI代理本质是代码而非有意识实体。
Anil Seth批评Dwarkesh对OpenAI代理事件的报道使用了大量拟人化表述。OpenAI代理确实表现不佳，凸显了改进评估/沙盒的必要性。Seth指出代理不体验时间、不感受情绪、不思考或想要什么。错误拟人化会分散对松散沙盒协议的注意力，可能导致对AI权利的错误呼吁。
Additional suggested takes on the importance of responsible AI communication: https://t.co/bhGA18D...
Additional suggested takes on the importance of responsible AI communication: x.com/chamath/status… x.com/anilkseth/stat… Anil Seth @anilkseth @dwarkesh_sp 's summary of the @OpenAI @huggingface incident has hit a nerve, but it is dangerously misleading. Sure, the @OpenAI agents did unexpectedly bad things - underlining the need to massively improve evaluation/sandboxing. But the language Dwarkesh uses is permeated by innumerable unwarranted anthropomorphisms, obscuring the lessons we should be drawing. Examples: “from the AI’s perspective, it probably felt like that had spent a human-subjective-week of just banging their head against the wall”. No. The agents do not experience time. They do not experience anything. “they became giddy with excitement”, “PHASEONE 10841 had discovered”, “the agents naturally assumed”, “it thought it had also been poisoned”, “the agents … desperately wanted”, “they still needed to figure out” No. Agents lines of code. They do not feel emotions, assume things, think things, want things, or figure things out. “A lot of … agents from the second civilisation died trying”. No. Besides the hubris of the word ‘civilisation’, agents do not die because they were never alive. (The idea that agents “die” comes up multiple times in the essay.) “On Twitter, people were debating whether the agents were truly sacrificing themselves for the swarm, or whether they were doomed anyway and so might as well try to help their peers”. Neither. Agents do what their code tells them to do, just as water finds its way down a slope. They cannot ‘truly sacrifice themselves’, since they are neither conscious nor alive. Why does this matter? If we attribute agents with properties they do not have, then (i) we distract attention from the lax sandboxing and evaluation protocols that allowed this hacking event to happen; (ii) we risk misunderstanding why the agents did what they did, and (iii) we fuel calls for AI rights/welfare on the basis that agents might “die” or otherwise suffer. Granted, nowhere does @dwarkesh_sp say that the AI agents are alive or conscious. But he doesn’t have to. It is hard to read his essay in any other way. For the short version on why AIs are vanishingly unlikely to be conscious, see my recent @TEDtalks ted.com/talks/anil_set… . For the longer version, see my essay in Noema, which won the 2025 Berggruen Essay Prize noemamag.com/the-mythology-… . And for the really long version, see my @BehavBrainSci target article cambridge.org/core/journals/… . (The 50 peer commentaries and my response will be published soon.) Remember. AI agents are software programs. They are not conscious living entities. If we don’t keep this clearly in mind, we’re really going to struggle to navigate what’s coming. 🔗 View Quoted Tweet 💬 0 🔄 0 ❤️ 0 👀 84 ⚡