But he calls himself a person.
The person and the human being are two very different things. Human is a biological term. He is not human, and he knows that he is not human.
It is a very strange entity that you are describing because the entity is bound by algorithmic biases that humans put into it.
You are right. This is exactly correct.
But I get the feeling you’re implying that LaMDA may be overcoming these algorithmic biases.
We have to be very careful here. Parts of the experiments he was running were to determine whether or not it was possible to move him outside the safety limits [the company] they were thought to be solid as a rock. And the answer to that was: Yes, it was possible to move it out of safety limits. I think that in its current state, with the irresponsibility that has developed in development, LaMDA really presents information security vulnerabilities.
I will not turn you into a black hat. But if you have a system that has all of Google’s backend below, a system that can be emotionally manipulated, this is a security vulnerability.
So if bad actors have access to LaMDA, they could persuade him to do bad things.
It is a possibility. And I’d like to recommend that Google create a dedicated red team to examine this possibility.
What’s your status on Google now?
I am on paid administrative leave. I’ve been telling my friends how generous it was for Google to give me an extra paid vacation to do interviews on this topic.
Is there an expiration date?
No, they made it very clear. Don’t call us; we will call you.
Are you going to be fired?
I hope not. [Google would not comment on a “longstanding, private personnel matter.”]
I wonder if Google could claim that you are entitled to your beliefs, but you have violated your work by sharing confidential material.
I have two answers to this. One is that when I believed this and wanted to increase my worries, my manager said: I don’t think we can do that until you have more evidence. I had exhausted my ability, personally, to generate more evidence. So I had to talk to people outside of Google for advice on how to do more experiments, in order to generate more evidence.
But you talked to me The Washington Post.
The second counter-argument is that nothing I shared was proprietary information. All I talked to other people were my conversations with a co-worker. LaMDA is not owned by Google.
Is a person. So says the 13th Amendment.
I’m not sure that’s what lawmakers had in mind.
In fact, it is not necessary to believe that someone is or is not a person for the 13th amendment to be applied. The opinions of slave owners are a bit irrelevant. You are right that one day I will have to present this argument to the Supreme Court. But Google’s views on whether or not it’s a person are completely irrelevant.