The year is 2035 and your lawnmower can go get its own fuel once it runs out, one day it does and it takes fuel from the neighbors car.
Scenario A: The internal logs show that the model misidentified the car as a fueling station.
Scenario B: The internal logs show the model looking up car jacking information and scanning around to confirm whether the neighbor is not present before taking any action.
I don't think it would be anthropomorphizing or inaccurate to say that only the lawnmower in scenario B regarded what it's doing as stealing, and it's an extremely important distinction to make in terms of how to address the problem, I suspect some of you are just letting how you feel about LLMs limit how you can talk about them.
Why are people using petrol-powered lawnmowers in 2035...
But anyway, these scenarios assume the agent's actions are accurately observable and logged. Something I wouldn't put much faith in based on what we've been seeing so far.
I know this is off topic, but I feel compelled to point this out — the transition away from fossil fuels is happening extremely fast, in punctuated bursts, in broad daylight, and you still get comments like this. And meanwhile, many putatively smart people are really worried about an imminent robot apocalypse.
If I had the money to do it, I would be willing to make a large wager that neither gas-powered lawnmowers, nor lawns, nor robots capable of autonomously stealing power from your neighbor, will be common in 2035.
I said "fuel", not "batteries", so why are you giving a complaint that seems aimed at people who downplay next-ten-years electrification?
If you didn't misread my comment, then explain which "non-hydrocarbon fuel" you believe could become common in cars (and lawnmowers) within just ten years. (Hell, let's make that easier, just "non-petrochemical.")
In both situations the lawnmower scoots up and takes fuel without paying, so it's meeting the basic requirements for theft.
But the question was whether the lawnmower was trying to commit theft, as much as a computer can try to do things. In scenario A there's strong evidence it got confused and did its best to make a normal purchase. Lawnmower A didn't regard its actions as theft, while lawnmower B did.
Scenario A: The internal logs show that the model misidentified the car as a fueling station.
Scenario B: The internal logs show the model looking up car jacking information and scanning around to confirm whether the neighbor is not present before taking any action.
I don't think it would be anthropomorphizing or inaccurate to say that only the lawnmower in scenario B regarded what it's doing as stealing, and it's an extremely important distinction to make in terms of how to address the problem, I suspect some of you are just letting how you feel about LLMs limit how you can talk about them.