Denying that "AI is now capable of developing its own inference hardware" on the grounds a human asked for this to happen and that humans need to be around to blame, is as useful as denying "Atomic bombs are now capable of levelling cities" on the grounds some humans had to build it, others had to put it in a delivery system, and someone had to give the order for its use.

Questions of agency are for lawyers, questions of personhood for philosophers, we're engineers and our question is capability.

Does it really have the capability? By default I'm sceptical for the same reasons given by sailingparrot: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49982068

> It's meant to assign agency and accountability where it actually lies instead of mystifying it with anthropomorphic language.

Yesterday, my boss told me to fix a bug in our product. Then, I fixed it. Today my boss is taking credit, saying that he fixed it. I guess he's right, since he told me to do it.

This conflates different issues and is akin to "guns don't kill people, people kill people" -- a denial that "has real and harmful consequences".

> It's meant to assign agency and accountability where it actually lies instead of mystifying it with anthropomorphic language. > Failing to do so has real and harmful consequences, such as enabling OpenAI to escape accountability for clearly criminal behavior.

Lol, I guess we cannot even say that AI is capable of doing something (obviously kicked off with a prompt, that goes without saying), because some people immediately get OpenAI hacking derangement syndrome.

OpenAI should be held accountable if actual damages happened, but I am not going to change completely normal speech figures in order to maybe bring it 0.01% closer.