upvote

points

by est318 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby grndn5 hours ago|
next
[-]
Or in one of my favorite coinages: "Moral Crumple Zones". "Just as the crumple zone in a car is designed to absorb the force of impact in a crash, the human in a highly complex and automated system may become simply a component—accidentally or intentionally—that bears the brunt of the moral and legal responsibilities when the overall system malfunctions." See https://ferd.ca/notes/paper-moral-crumple-zones.html
reply
upvoteby Terr_2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Related: "Accountability Sink", a system which is designed to channel responsibility away from the people making the decisions, e.g. a powerless "complaints department".
reply
upvoteby inigyou7 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Yep and the car wasn't self-driving at the moment it crashed.
reply
upvoteby autoexec4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
...because the self-driving feature turned itself off after detecting the crash in the fractions of a millisecond before the crash was recorded
reply
upvoteby Terr_2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
In a rare bit of still-sane news, the US National Highway and Safety Administration staff aren't dumb: Their policy is to consider whether any automation was active in 30 seconds before the crash.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/standing-general-orde...

reply
upvoteby inigyou1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
How many million dollars do you think will reverse this policy?
reply
upvoteby tjoff1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
the whole concept of having cars with that are almost capable of self-driving is utterly insane, the very least you'd need special training. We are not equipped to deal with something that works brilliantly most of the times but might kill you for no foreseeable reason.
reply
upvoteby Terr_1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Yeah, that's definitely the frustrating zeitgeist for me these days, which extends to LLMs.

I'd also emphasize that it's not just error rate, but the shape/distribution of errors, and our (in)ability to build control systems around them.

To illustrate, imagine if someone unveiled a car which was unambiguously safer in every statistical measure... buuuut some of its unsafety was came jumping the curb to target and kill pedestrians, for reasons we can't predict or diagnose.

reply
upvoteby inigyou1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Even pilots are getting this automation-complacency now. A plane crashed because the military jammed GPS and the pilot wasn't used to any backup procedures even though 30 years ago they were the only procedures.
reply
upvoteby danudey4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
"Uh oh, this is a problem. Welp, I'm outta here, good luck."
reply
upvoteby Aurornis7 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
If a company advertised an LLM as perfectly safe and then it caused some damage, there would be a case against the company.

Have you used LLM tooling? It comes with warnings and explains that the user accepts the risk. Different levels of warning are supplied for the different levels of autonomy you can enable. The user has to understand the risk as they enable it.

This is not a new concept and it’s not an idea the LLM companies invented. It shouldn’t be surprising to anyone.

reply
upvoteby autoexec4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
It's not new to LLM companies, but it does seem like they're leaning away from the standard "Hey, don't blame us if this doesn't work" and are moving into "It's now your fault any time our software fucks something up" which feels new.
reply
upvoteby chrisjj6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> This is not a new concept and it’s not an idea the LLM companies invented.

I don't recall any prior computer software working so badly that it needed a disclaimer like "Claude is AI and can make mistakes" on its front page. Let alone one so costly.

reply
upvoteby mhjkl5 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
You must not use any open source software, because much of it comes with a whole paragraph of ”IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY“
reply
upvoteby rrr_oh_man5 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
That would be fine if Claude was open source and/or unpaid
reply
upvoteby rcxdude4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
If you read the fine print of most commercial software you'll see some language to a similar effect. When's the last time Microsoft got sued due to an outage caused by a bug in Windows?
reply
upvoteby inigyou3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
That's actually meaningless in Europe under the Cyber Resiliency Act by the way. They are liable even if they say they aren't.
reply
upvoteby chrisjj4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Yes, the fine print.

Only this so-called "AI" needs it full size on the front page.

reply
upvoteby rcxdude3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I would consider that more honest than more of a problem.
reply
upvoteby eastbound4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
This sentence only exists to offset law (or case law) have gave damage rights to anyone.
reply
upvoteby Aurornis4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Every piece of software comes with giant disclaimers like this.

You’ve just been clicking past them.

This really isn’t new.

reply