@draeath @nihkeys @DJGummikuh @GossiTheDog If it was an accident, or incompetence, then it would be rapidly corrected.

If it's not rapidly corrected, then it is the purpose.

@Azuaron @draeath @nihkeys @DJGummikuh @GossiTheDog That assumes that the technology to fix it even exists.

For all I know, the companies behind coding LLMs don’t want it to produce insecure code, but do not know how to make it produce secure code.

@alwayscurious @draeath @nihkeys @DJGummikuh @GossiTheDog I do not assume that. I guess an unstated corollary is that it would be rapidly corrected or decommissioned.

But, that doesn't change the purpose of the system. The purpose of a system is always what it does, with a short grace period to allow for corrections.

For instance, there was a law that was almost put into place in New Hampshire that was supposed to doubly punish anyone who killed a pregnant woman, but not prohibit abortion. The version of the bill that passed both legislative houses unintentionally made murder legal for pregnant women. Not just abortion, but the murder of anyone. Once this was noticed, and before the governor signed it, the legislature went into overdrive to correct the bill. An alternative solution would have been for the governor to veto the bill.

The purpose of the New Hampshire government was not to allow pregnant women to legally kill anyone they wanted.

If New Hampshire legalized murder by the pregnant, then afterward threw up their hands and said, "Woe is us! It was an accident! There's nothing we can do!" who would take them seriously?

The beauty of "The purpose of a system is what it does" framework is you no longer have to read someone's mind or listen to their disingenuous protestations. You don't need, for instance, to know if the companies behind coding LLMs "want" them to produce insecure code. Their wants, stated or otherwise, are completely irrelevant.

You might say, the purpose of "The purpose of a system is what it does" framework is to head off that kind of dissimulation.

@Azuaron @draeath @nihkeys @DJGummikuh @GossiTheDog There are cases where a system can have unintended consequences that are not its purpose.

A simple example is that various forms of government regulation impose extra overhead on businesses. The purpose of the regulations is usually something else, such as improving safety or protecting the environment. If the goal was to impose extra overhead, taxation would be a much simpler approach. Imposing overhead is a necessary but unwanted side-effect in this case.

@alwayscurious

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does

@Azuaron @draeath @DJGummikuh @GossiTheDog