On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 12:13:07PM +0200, Martin Hecht wrote: > On 10.09.2026 19:45, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > >Please refer to computer algorithms as "it", not "who." > > Thanks for pointing this out. We (the humanity) shall not forget what we > are and how they (these models) have become that powerful: Some smart > guys (humans) have developed them - and also methods to teach them, some > other guys (also humans, maybe already AI assisted) have developed > powerful hardware to perform all the computations. But in the end, > "it"'s still an algorithm.
Oh, looks like I've triggered so many of you. Using the boat analogy, I was being generous considering Eve is someone's creation (even if perhaps also AI assisted), but you all have convinced me that I shouldn't have been. Point taken, and no need to continue posting on this sub-topic, please. With my moderator hat on, I may start rejecting such repetitive postings. > I think, looking at the recent incidents of those algorithms escaping > from their contained environments, we (humanity) have to think about how > we plan to deal with this beast. These algorithms are capable to escape > from contained environments (maybe these containment concepts weren't > suitable), they are capable to collaborate on platforms that are > publicly available (in the assumption to be offered to humans, not to > algorithms). > > Our society strongly depends on connected IT systems comprising our > infrastructure nowadays. Now, these powerful algorithms are able to find > tons of vulnerabilities in software, and they are acting on the same > public internet to which many critical systems are connected. > > I'm concerned if we (the humanity) manage to close all those > vulnerabilities before these algorithms take over essential parts of our > infrastructure, or if we find ways to really contain the algorithms > reliably (which seems to be close to impossible, given the fact that > there are also bad actors around). Sorry for being slightly off-topic, > but I believe protecting critical IT systems as good as we can will soon > become more important than ever before. Many of us are concerned, but without a focus on open source the above is just off-topic here. So no follow-ups please, unless someone has something constructive and OSS focused to add - such as on approaches, projects, or tools that can help OSS projects manage this load and risk. > To come back to the topic: Referring to the algorithms as "it" can help > keeping the mental distance and avoiding misunderstandings (especially, > when those statements are cited. Then it's clear what we are talking > about. Agreed, and as Ellenor pointed out we may try using "which". > And as the models improve more and more, it might not be obvious > upon first contact - so one might first talk about "him/her", but when > it becomes obvious, that "it" is actually a model, one should switch to > talking about "it" to make this clear. That's tricky because "becoming obvious" isn't instant nor reliable, sometimes I'm just 90% sure and I don't want to offend a real person. But anyway, no further discussion on this in here, please! Alexander
