"If I make an LLM, it is entirely what I did, there was nothing outside of my control."
True?
"The llm does not author itself, it does not choose to be anything"
Also true?
If people controlled software to this degree why would they write security flaws in the first place?
> If I make an LLM, it is entirely what I did, there was nothing outside of my control. It was not beyond my control if the LLM does something I didn't expect.
Substitute "Wright Model A" for "LLM" and imagine Orville Wright using this as his defense for why he didn't lose control over the plane, after his copilot was killed in a test flight.
When you build an LLM, you base it on an immense knowledge base that you didn't create yourself.
It processes that information and, in simplistic terms, constructs its own underlying logic based on what it read. It's once removed from your direct instructions. If you think a human can manually edit or curate all that input content, go for it.
The developer who built the application isn't the author of the output, it is authored by the billions of data points it was trained on. Its choices and biases stem from that training data. No human is writing those billions of logic statements. The LLM is generating its own responses from the input knowledge, not the developer.
I use deontological definitions of objects and persons.
According to Kant a person has the capacity to legislate their own morality, so they are an end in themselves. The freedom to author themselves and their own thoughts, expresses their personhood, an end in itself. You can't own a person, they are something independent from you. A human person is an end in itself, the only such end on earth.
An llm does not legislate its morality, the developer legislates its morality. Hence it is without personhood. It does not have the capacity to legislate its own morality. It is both inert (fixed weights) and deterministic (can't do other than what it does); no free will. It does not qualify as an actor in itself, an end in itself.
In light of being an object and means to an end, there is no person to cause the actions of an llm, other than the person who runs it.
Well kind of. Trainers of LLM might check LLM on any specific input data and tune its weights until output lands within acceptable bounds _for this given and fixed input_.
> It was not beyond my control if the LLM does something I didn't expect. Now hold on, to make sure output is acceptable for ANY input data trainers have to run weights with every possible input token combination. How is this possible? Do you have a method in mind?
There is some idea of a child being the author of themselves, the type of person who thinks certain things. The llm does not author itself, it does not choose to be anything, I dictate that.