Really sharp reframe on responsibility as event-to-event relations rather than entity properties. The corporate personhood analogy clicks hard becasue it shows we've already solved similar alignment problems with legal fictions. I wonder if framing AI accountability this way sidesteps a lot of the conciousness debates that go nowhere, focusing instead on practical governance structures that actually work.
Thank you for reading so carefully and for your thoughtful reply! Agree on the accountability question: to make practical decisions we have no choice but to deal with concrete relationships and consequences.
Really sharp reframe on responsibility as event-to-event relations rather than entity properties. The corporate personhood analogy clicks hard becasue it shows we've already solved similar alignment problems with legal fictions. I wonder if framing AI accountability this way sidesteps a lot of the conciousness debates that go nowhere, focusing instead on practical governance structures that actually work.
Thank you for reading so carefully and for your thoughtful reply! Agree on the accountability question: to make practical decisions we have no choice but to deal with concrete relationships and consequences.
I like the methodological move here.
Reducing questions like free will to evaluable, self-contained claims avoids a lot of definition-driven deadlock and keeps the discussion grounded.
Thank you! Yes, the reduction into testable claims is really the only way to make progress on these questions without spinning in circles.