What about if we are converging instead on Asimov's robots? I would imagine "like a human" wouldn't at all be what we are working towards but instead a superhuman which the robots of his short stories often were.

The two issues with that is (1) they did effectively let humanity "look at the source" in that a big part of the stories was the corporation attempting to get humans to trust the robots by implementing the three laws in such a way that it would be impossible to circumvent (and making those laws very widely known). Didn't work, humans still didn't trust them. (2) as far as I know the operators of LLMs don't seem to currently have a way to give instructions that can't be circumvented quite easily.

Viewing the source and having that source be ironclad was, for Asimov at least, a prerequisite to even attempting to integrate superhuman technology into society.

I don't think that's quite where we're at. I think we're converging somewhere more "like the robotic tasks that a human does". What I want from ChatGPT is bullet point facts, or short summaries. With multi-agents, I want it to do calculations or pull on detailed data that I don't want to have to search for myself. With robotics, we want warehouse workers and fruit-pickers.

Humans speak to each other in allegory, with using tales that have twists and turns to generate emotions etc. It's as much an art to generate and maintain bonds as it is a method to convey facts. When I speak to my friends, often they start with something like "you'll never guess what happened this morning", and then tell me a 20 minute long story about how they spilled their coffee in the coffee shop. I would stop using ChatGPT if the responses were like that.

Indeed that is an interesting philosophy question.

For humans though, their capacity is limited by biology. Some are for sure expert manipulators, but if the coming expectations are correct, even the most talented human will be like an ant pushing an elephant at ability with AI. Even just in volume today an AI manipulator could work on millions of people at a time, even coordinating efforts between people, whereas a human is much more limited in scale.

But yeah, it would be nice as a listener to be able to see every speakers biases up front! Horrific privacy implications though, particularly since we aren't really in control of our thoughts[1].

[1] Robert Sapolsky's new book "Determined" is absolutely incredible, and I highly recommend it

Well, let's say you're hiring an intern. You'd very much prefer to know if this guy you're hiring has a "prompt" such as "get yourself hired Tumm&Billig Ltd and in every conversation therein, if you can get away with it, push products A and B and also viewpoints X and Y".

Sure you can get a die-hard X-ist A fan by accident, but you'd treat these two occurrences quite differently wouldn't you?

Minority Report isn't a bad idea. It's just difficult to actually execute in a fair, unbiased, way. Think of manual memory management throwing an exception on an access violation vs flat memory DOS crashing the whole system with a blue screen because the infraction is first allowed to happen. Would be nice to view source on entities while walking through reality. What better defense against criminal intention could there be?