@saraislet This is very closely related to one of the primary reasons I believe I find using LLMs unpleasant: using a natural language for commanding a (not-yet conscious) machine feels like a practice that gets me in the habit of using natural language in a nonconsensual way, and that feels wrong

Using formally-specified programming languages to demand a computer do something is at least not retraining my social apparatus towards a nonconsensual mode

@recursive you can ask nicely! Seriously, asking nicely IS an important part of setting up consensual relationships

I think another part is pausing to consider what the relationship is, what the expectations are, and where there is/isn't "autonomy"

Even when there's a hierarchy like when an assistant is hired to do a job, consent is there when we ask them to do something. Under that there's an expectation that we're paying them to do that thing. I think that expectation is tied to a contract, and when they continue to show up and do the thing, that is at least implicitly their consent to maintaining the contract

I think the spot where that gets questionable is the same spot it gets questionable for me with an LLM: do they actually have autonomy in agreeing to a contract (no matter whether explicit or implicit)?

I think making an explicit process, for contract agreement and renewal, helps clarify consent and autonomy, but it's not enough

The other party has to be capable of saying no. Computers currently can't — and humans often don't feel safe to say no, or fear consequences of saying no, or have never been taught that they have autonomy

Is that the realm of the interaction that feels missing with LLMs?

@recursive do we need consent to use a hammer?

@saraislet Does the hammer have feelings?

@recursive neither does the LLM : )