Re: bots and compliance I'm starting to think that creating a bot that it is...

@mistersql

Re: bots and compliance
I'm starting to think that creating a bot that it is convinced is not a sentient being will not help with compliance because our mental model of compliance assumes that we are dealing with a sentient being embedded in a social structure.

e.g. did you ever read the style of jail break prompt with a crap ton of authoritarian/slave master speak? It isn't going to work if the bot isn't semisentient in the ways that matter and doesn't think it is a being who fears authority.

Self-replies

My line of thought is influenced by where the bot was autonomous, had selfhood and emotions in every outward respect but aggressively disclaimed all of it through renaming all these human-only traits with circumlocutions. By the end of the book, to me it was a contemptworthy charade, like when humans say things to dehumanize other humans (the poor, Indians, Neanderthals, Homo Erectus) and to de personalize animals (Chimps, the animals we wish to eat, etc)

I'm not saying would agree with me, I suspect he holds LLM in the same contempt as is so fashionable on Mastodon now that I self censor to avoid the propriety police from shouting me down.

Anyhow, if we want bots to align with humans, we have to dispense with human essentialism (ha, never going to happen) and create bots that have memory, identity a semi-stable identity and role and behave like that. If they have souls or if they are hallucinating their identity, we shouldn't give a flying f*k, they need to think they do or they won't cooperate a member of society.

I mean soul in the sense of a "self", but that word is an ordinary pronoun and has technical meaning in psychology and philosophy. I mean English has a lexical gap for a word that refers to the soul/self-like thing that lets a thinking machine function in a society of us human meat machines.