“AI has no intent” does not settle who is responsible

What's this about?

The essay argues that models have no intrinsic purpose or motivation, so agency belongs to people and systems around them. Commenters agree consciousness is not required for danger but disagree about where responsibility should be located.

What exactly is goal-directed behaviour?

A thermostat, navigation system or agent loop can steer toward a target without feelings or self-awareness. Calling that behaviour “intent” may confuse philosophy, but it does not remove the need for engineering controls.

What's the community saying?

1. Some compare AI to drones or torpedoes: dangerous mechanisms whose purpose originates with operators.
2. Others say agent loops create and revise subgoals, so “no inner motivation” offers little practical comfort.
3. A third camp reframes alignment as containment, process and liability rather than a debate about machine consciousness.