392
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] fubarx@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

You rolled a bowling ball down a hill. It struck a few cars on the way and went through a house and killed their pet. Guess who would be held responsible? You or the bowling ball manufacturer?

What if the bowling ball was really shiny and worth $100B? Should it make a difference?

[-] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 19 points 1 month ago

What if you bowl your ball normally down the lane and of its own initiative it goes and hacks a website?

[-] fubarx@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

In that case, society's to blame.

[-] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 9 points 1 month ago

Really? I'm inclined to blame that on the manufacturer. If 'AI' guardrails fail that spectacularly, it's on the provider. I fail to see any way to blame society, other than perhaps not voting in more sanity, but that's pretty indirect.

[-] fubarx@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Sigh. I really need to put /s around things.

It's a Monty Python quote.

[-] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month ago

Fair cop, probably should have got it. But rather out of context here without ascribing it.

[-] SparroHawc@piefed.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

As the person who deployed the agent, you are responsible for what it does on your behalf. You stand to gain from its actions, you also stand to lose from its bad behavior.

Of course, if the company that provided you the agent knowingly misrepresented the product, you can seek damages for what the agent did - but that's up to you (and good luck getting damages from trillion-dollar tech companies and their armies of lawyers).

[-] NihilsineNefas@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago

How do you guardrail the machine that is programmed to literally make things up and/or tell you you're doing a great job while it does it?

[-] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 month ago

IMO you likely can't, certainly hasn't even gotten close yet. Bodes badly for alignment of anything more general. Kind of makes it irresponsible to advocate (and sell) using it on anything important, no?

[-] NihilsineNefas@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month ago

It's 100% irresponsible. Especially given how many of then are going rogue.

[-] GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 month ago

If I make a gun that actively chooses to kill people, I didn't build a gun and that whole argument falls apart. I'd hold everyone from the CEO to the janitor accountable.

[-] Abyssian@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

If you make a gun... you didn't make it? o_O

[-] GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago

That's not a gun. That's an autonomous killing device. The only gun that ever killed people of its own free will was the STEN gun. If you make something that kills without human intent, that's not a gun anymore.

[-] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub -2 points 1 month ago

You're still liable as the owner of the gun. You can sue the builder of the gun in turn of course so they go to jail too.

this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2026
392 points (98.3% liked)

Technology

88021 readers
3756 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS