Our relationship with computers and Al should be based on consent!

We're on the verge of giving Al the capability to take actions (theoretically on behalf of a user). Now, I don't know what Al or a random number generator is going to do with my personal information, but what matters is consent.

What struck me about our current relationship with #ArtificialIntelligence is that it *doesn't matter* that Al is currently basically a random number generator instead of the quasi-sentient entity that Al-enthusiasts want.

It's my data, my personal information. My relationship with Al isn't what's important. I'm not here to dictate to Alfred (excuse me, Al). What matters is that I tell Al what personal information I am willing to share in each interaction, and what actions I am willing to let Al take on my behalf (e.g., using my money and location data to order tickets for a local movie).

The scope of data and actions that Al can take on behalf of a user should be about consent, and it should be a contract between Al and the user. It is not about control, and it is not about subservience.

Right now, computers are only capable of doing what they're instructed (even if that's generating random numbers and using that as their input) — but that's still implicitly a contract wherein the terms are spelled out by the mechanics of the design. Should that evolve, we would still seek at each stage to seek a reasonable degree of verification of consent to the contracted expectations (which has been explored in different realms of philosophy and science fiction)

In other words, at some point we would simply ask Al — and develop a more refined understanding of what autonomy means for Alfred (excuse me, Al)

@saraislet interessting thoughts. What worries me the most in the here and now is that informed concent has left the picture long ago for the average computet user. Most none-techies are as much slaves to the design and business decisions of vendors as the machines are. Most consumer software even goes so fare as to do what it assumes I want it to do, not what I actually instructed it to do.

@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?

@saraislet Yeah. All of that. That's what's tricky!

But especially, how is it consent if they can't reasonably say "no"

And this leads to some pointed criticism of the present-day systems of humans making other humans do tasks for them in most of the world

It really feels like it points out how much we need to improve this with humans, before we have any hope of doing it right for LLMs

@recursive do we need consent to use a hammer?

@saraislet Does the hammer have feelings?

@recursive neither does the LLM : )

@gilgwath that's true even beyond computers and technology — is that any different when it comes to the food we eat?

As someone with food allergies, I don't experience much informed consent when it comes to what's in the food I get from restaurants, or even from grocers or friends. Restaurants and friends aren't always clear on the ingredients or allergens, and even in a grocery, packaged food ingredients depend on regulations that vary by country (and even then there's risks and contaminants), and even basic produce can be sprayed with chemicals that I might react to (and might be harming all of us 💀)

You're completely right that it's an awful state of informed consent, and that goes horrifyingly far

@gilgwath not to mention microplastics 💀💀💀