Interesting topic now that all the major developers sat down with trump and announcements were made to integrate these systems into the government. Quick dont make any laws so the government mold this technology to MAGA ideals.
Developers or companies?
Developers. Like if you're prompting they want all the liability on you. Please ignore the man behind the curtains.
Lolwut? At that point, I might as well start my own company.
Yeah, obviously, if I commit code authored by an LLM, I am the one committing it. I am the one responsible. The LLM may be called an agent, but it lacks all sentient agency. The branding of AI is not true AI, and it seems like this chairman actually gets that anthropomorphization is a problem.
LLMs are tools. If the hammer flies out of your hand and hits someone in the face: yes, it's your fault. It may not feel like it, but I'm sure it does to the person who got hit in the face. We're all adults, and we can probably understand the stochastic randomness involved, and that accidents happen, and a human can write bugs and do stupid things just like an agent can. But we can also understand the responsibilities of the person swinging the hammer.
If I write bad code that lights everything on fire, I am fucked. If my agent writes bad code that sets everything on fire, I should also be fucked. I can have explanations, but I can't have excuses. Especially if I'm the one committing it and I'm okaying / signing off on it.
There's a saying in avionics: "crashing means crashing." you need to be very aware of what you're writing and the consequences it can have. obviously the severity varies by industry, but professionals have accountability, responsibility, and yes, often, liability.
If you try to conduct malicious experiments with AI and it's not confined properly and it does break out and cause real harm, it's just like you were conducting any other kind of experiment and it goes wrong and someone else got harmed. It means that your safeties were inadequate or a terrible accident happened. You don't get to just point at the hammer and say "I don't know man, it just flew away."
Thanks for coming to my TED talk
I agree with you here. Playing devils advocate though, who’s responsible for cases like this:
I wonder how we might split accountability between hosting providers, inference providers, users, … based on context. This might be something that winds up being discovered through existing cases, but unfortunately the current cases aren’t really going to court much are they?
Nuance in my echo chamber nooooooooo. Yea we're talking about a web application that is readily available and highly adopted by kids lol. A web applications thats far beyond their basic understanding, assisting them in doing things beyond there understanding. It's a tricky liability question. Since it is a liability question the owners and distributors should be liable not their unknowing customers.
If say it's more like self driving cars knowing the speed limit but being able to go over it.
Like, an "emergency mode" is one thing. But baking it in easy like they do should make them liable. If speed limits are based on safety and is law, then they're selling a product that easily circumvents that law.
The difference is breaking this law doesn't cost billionaires money, but look at any technological innovation that could cost billionaires money and this shit wouldn't fly.
Like, imagine if it was about something that duplicated consumer media and the product just ignored DRM at the press of a button. "Do you want to ignore these laws?" Would never fly, the person who made the software would be prosecuted or at least sued.
So maybe we class action them? Everyone who's ridden in a car sues the automakers who let driver assist violate laws and endanger us all?
Everyone who’s ridden in a car sues the automakers who let driver assist violate laws and endanger us all?
Big ol Chadly YES.
If say it's more like self driving cars knowing the speed limit but being able to go over it.
I like this analogy. The "hammer" example (that the OP used) is too simple. A hammer has a single purpose and a single functionality.
A self-driving car is closer to AI agents. The car has a purpose (to drive) but the mechanism is much more complicated than a hammer. If a driver hits the gas and drive over a pedestrian, it's totally their fault. However, if the self driving car drives through a wall, the manufacturer should be held accountable.
Likewise with AI, if I tell it to write and ship code, which is exploitable: that's on me. If AI decides to disregard my input and decides to delete all my emails, the developer of the tool should be held accountable.
Well of course. Who else would be liable?
if my car "breaks loose" of its parking break, I'm responsible for every kid it rolls over.
AI companies should be responsible for the damage their AIs do when they "break loose"
Not really, if you set the parking brake and it rolls away, an investigation is conducted. If you failed properly set the brake or it was in such a state of disrepair, it's your negligence and you're at fault.
If the investigation determines that the car has a design fault that causes the brake to fail prematurely or your car was manufactured improperly - the manufacturer is at fault.
If, somehow, the road or infrastructure around the car caused the brake to fail... Well, you get it.
Basically, a better example would be "If I fire a gun into the air, I'm responsible for where every bullet lands."
This is the first sensible proposal for regulating AI that I have ever heard. Make the chucklefucks who are unleashing this horror directly responsible for their bullshit.
Chat GPT hacks a government website? 5 years in jail for Altman. Claude agent deletes someone's database? Amodei gets the bill to fix it.
All AI bullshit stops over night.
Unfortunately the Corporate Veil exists in the US (and most other) legal systems. I personally believe that this is a major root for all of the bullshit we have to deal with on a daily basis. You kill someone, you go to prison. A company has shitty safety intentionally to save money and someone dies, nobody sees prison. CEOs always say they deserve the money because they take the risk... Let's make that very true.
The entire board should be held accountable and share the punishments, otherwise they still have their fall guy.
This isn't even regulation. The floor is not being distracted by morons shouting "it's alive!" whilst robbing you and pointing to a computer. "Arrest that computer officer! It did all the bad things!"
Or its just another way for the government to prosecute you and strip you of your resources. I'm SURE that no one will be unjustly punished over something their AI did.
Absolutely 100%.
If an OpenAI model hacks another company, OpenAI should face criminal charges for the AI's actions, and should be liable in a civil lawsuit by that company no different than if an OpenAI employee personally hacked the site.
Doesn't matter that it's an AI. If you can't control the software you're building (be it AI or not) you shouldn't be building it.
How in the fuck could that ever be a question??
I’m impressed that someone with an iota of power just called it out as it is? That direct quote is the sanest thing I’ve heard out of that entire continent in over a year
Oh wow, wasn't expecting that
No, I will happily pay for all the damage that Grok, Claude, ChatGPT, and Joe’s bait, tackle, taxidermy and AI will inevitably do to me and my family.
I am also looking forward to the stock market bubble to pop destroying my retirement
It is the least I can do
/s
~~suggests~~ should be demands. Spineless and useless.
AI CEOs currently talking strategies for avoiding liability with their LLMs.
Even better make the client liable. If grok is spewing lies that leads to damages for someone, don't make just Elon Musk liable and XAI or whatever made it, make Twitter liable for it spewing garbage.
If a real estate agent uses AI and it messes things up for a buyer for seller make the real estate agent liable.
If people are liable for the AIs mistakes they won't use it. If people don't use it AI will die.
If you make the companies that made AI responsible, they will get token $1 million dollar fines after weeks in court while making $1 billion in profit and nothing will ever change.
What angers me is that people are buying into the AI shit that the companies are peddlings. These aren't sentient machines with a will of their own or even any mechanism to do anything on their own. These shit-heels are taking a text generator, trained on doing all sorts of shit, and piping its results into a bash-shell. If you just don't do that they can't do any of the damage they did in OpenAI's case. They try to make it look like they're figuratively breaking out of a cage or jail. That's not what's happening.
They're given every tool they need and then they add clumsy and inefficient filters on the output text they're writing. It's negligent incompetence.
But they do this for a reason. They want legislation to stop what they're doing. OpenAI specifically does not have an avenue currently where they end up making money, so they want everyone to stop training new models so that they can focus on making a positive cash flow rather than competing.
People need to stop eating the bullshit these companies are shovelling. Yes, if you write an application that breaks into the pentagon you're looking at jailtime. If you host a LLM that does the same thing it's the exact same issue. If it did break in then you weren't paying attention (i.e. being negligent). It's not a complicated problem.
Llms should be accessories where someone is intentionally doing bad things(criminal neglect or whatever) and should be completely responsible when it without being instructed to do bad things.
The fuck is wrong with us already that this isn't already obvious.
They made the product and the product is doing illegal things. How is it NOT their fault and responsibility?
It should be safeguarded from doing bad things, by the developers, who should be liable for the public saftey issues the product they sell causes. You should not be able to prompt these things into crime, they should not have jail breaks, and they damn sure shouldnt be developing them into weapons systems. The problem is when you're aiming the things at surveillance and violence, you're gonna find a lot of ugly uses for them at home. As we rush these things out to make more money faster, eventually a really unsafe product will ship, an inconceivable use will arise. A jail break that can't be undone. Yea the producers should be liable and safeguarding their product.
If I hold a fork normally and it jumps out of my hand and stabs little Suzy in the eye it seems like the manufacturer ought to be liable. If I knew it might do that and I use it anyway probably we both are and a court probably gets to decide who bears how much of the fault. In no situation do we assign guilt to the fork even if it would be awfully convenient for everyone but Suzy if the fork which has no assets were the one liable.
If i handed someone a gun without a background check, waiting period, and they were also foaming at the mouth to kill someone would I be liable or criminally accountable? Both??? Why did we end up requiring background checks and holding periods for guns and not forks? If a tesla hits a pedestrian while on autopilot who is at fault? That's gone through the courts a couple times already. Did they hold TSLA liable???
Good. They are catching on
Yes, this would fucking nuke the AI industry
The classic pro second amendment argument works here.
If the agents are responsible than these assholes are on the hook for thousands of trillions of dollars in back pay.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.