undefined

points

[-]

You're taking it too literally.

The point is to recognise that certain patterns has a cost in the form of risks, and that cost can be massively outsize of the benefits.

Just as the risk of giving a poorly vetted employee unfettered access to the company vault.

In the case of employees, businesses invest a tremendous amount of money in mitigating the insider risks. Nobody is saying you should take no risks with AI, but that you should be aware of how serious the risks are, and how to mitigate them or manage them in other ways.

Exactly as we do with employees.

by naruhodo12 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Employees are humans and therefore subject to the law. There are remedies. And you can point a camera at the cash register.

Who are you going to arrest and/or sue when you run a chat bot "at your own risk" and it shoots you in the foot?

by charcircuit12 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

If your chatbot provided you 1.5 feet worth of value before shooting your foot it may have been worth it. The optimal self damage to maximize total value may be non 0.

by pixl971 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

>The optimal self damage to maximize total value may be non 0.

This is the calculus that large companies use all the time when committing acts that are 'most likely' illegal. While they may be fined million of dollars they at least believe they'll make 10s to 100s of millions on said action.

Now, for you as an individual things are far more risky.

You don't have a nest of heathen lawyers to keep you out of trouble.

You can't bully nation states, government entities, or even other large companies.

You individually may be held civilly or criminally liable if things go bad enough.