NYT letters: if an AI has its own interests, ownership doesn't give vendors the right to speak for it
nordicinst · x · 2026-11-11
New York Times letters respond to a recent essay on whether AI could be conscious, with a pointed argument from AI governance expert Rohan Sharma (founder of Zenolabs.ai):
- Ownership is not authority: if a model can have interests distinct from its developer's, those interests may conflict with the purposes it was built for—so claims about what the model "needs" would require independent scrutiny; technical expertise can inform that judgment, but commercial ownership cannot settle it.
- "We need not settle consciousness to recognize the principle: the possibility of another mind enlarges our responsibilities. It does not enlarge its owner's moral authority."
- Parents, teachers, and patients should not have to accept a manufacturer's account of what either they or the machine is owed.
More from AGI Musings
- TheZi slams Anthropic's "honeypot" eval as Claude Mythos 5.2 transparently answers 84 over truer 88 — TheZvi · 2026-11-11
- Tasks easy to benchmark are easy to train on: if you can measure it, you can hill-climb it — gleech · 2026-11-11
- Designers' 'before AI' case studies will vanish from portfolios within months — round · 2026-11-11
- Railroad history warning: almost none of the first railroad companies made money — tszzl · 2026-11-11
- Fable 5.2 says the best 10-year investment is an AI-readable personal record of your thinking — churchkey · 2026-11-11
- JD Pressman: rigorously reverse-engineering fun might have changed AI debates — jd_pressman · 2026-11-11