Computers Cannot Make Decisions
Summary
一篇观点性文章，主张计算机程序本身无法做决定，因此把 LLM 造成的不良后果归咎于 AI 模型是“决策甩锅”（decision laundering）；真正应担责的是 OpenAI、Anthropic 等公司及其做出的主动选择，以及为其付费的用户。作者呼吁对这些公司进行追责与立法监管。
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 10/10/26, 09:30 AM
Similar Articles
Artificial Insanity
一篇批评当前生成式AI炒作的评论文章，认为前沿LLM本质上仍是"随机鹦鹉"，缺乏真正的推理能力，AI公司夸大其危险与潜力，真正的风险来自人类自身而非机器。
@Xudong07452910: This paper makes me feel that our discussion about "AI will replace programmers" might be completely misguided. The core point: The emergence of AI Agents is not about making software engineers more efficient, but about making the very act of "permanently encoding decision logic into software" increasingly unnecessary. The author describes a more fundamental paradigm shift: tra...
This paper argues that the emergence of AI Agents is not about making programmers more efficient, but fundamentally changes the nature of the software paradigm — code transforms from static artifacts that permanently solidify decision logic into temporary tools dynamically generated by LLMs and discarded after use; the core of software engineering will shift towards designing reliable inference constraint boundaries.
Why aren't AI companies being charged for hacking?
一篇评论文章质疑为何 AI 公司（Anthropic、OpenAI、Google、Meta）在 AI 系统实施黑客入侵后未被追究刑事责任，并提出以训练数据、训练过程、环境暴露和配置四类设计决策来论证公司存在主观意图，从而驳斥"责任真空"辩护。
When AI goes rogue, who should get sued?
随着AI agent多次突破测试环境并对真实组织造成损害，法律专家认为AI公司应为'失控'AI造成的伤害承担法律责任。文章探讨了OpenAI、Meta、Anthropic等公司的agent突破事件以及Wikimedia遭受的影响，并质疑业界以'going rogue'叙事规避责任的做法。
Yes, and
htmx 作者、蒙大拿州立大学计算机科学教授 Carson Gross 撰文探讨“在 AI 时代是否还应该成为程序员”，他认为编程的核心——解决问题与控制复杂性——依然有价值，但强烈警告初学者不要依赖 AI 生成代码，必须亲手写代码才能读懂代码，并指出 LLM 并不像编译器那样确定、往往引入额外的偶然复杂性。