upvote

points

by tantalor1 days ago |
comments
upvoteby hi_im_greg_h1 days ago|
next
[-]
Ignorance of the law is not immunity from the law though. That's pretty well established no?
reply
upvoteby tantalor1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
It's not ignorance of the law. It's ignorance of the risk. You have a reasonable expectation of being unable to predict the future. It's only when you "should have known" that you may incur a liability for disregarding a risk.
reply
upvoteby program_whiz1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
are you arguing AI manufacturers and developers are not aware of possible risks?
reply
upvoteby SirMadam1 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I believe they're arguing AI manufacturers and developers are the people primarily aware of the risks, and not random users necessarily.

If OpenAI staff runs an ExploitBench knowing the risks, and it hacks into HF, they KNEW the risk going into it and a bad/illegal outcome happened

If a random teacher opens ChatGPT and asks "Hey what's the answer to this practice SAT problem?", and it hacks the CollegeBoard for the answer, said teacher probably wasn't aware that was even an outcome that could plausibly occur. OpenAI would have that foreknowledge, though

reply
upvoteby tantalor1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
No I specifically said those people should be aware.

It's your random OpenClaw users who have no idea what they are doing, and might be insulated.

reply
upvoteby Lord-Jobo1 days ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Also NAL just legal-curious: Intent is a spectrum in our legal structure, with several checkpoints used at different points. It’s very reasonable to pick one of the lower ones for this kind of thing and I really don’t see why the legal system is taking so long on it. Higher intent would be something like “knowingly false statements, or reckless disregard for the truth” seen in our defamation law. Lower intent would be something like “failed to exercise reasonable care” seen in civil negligence. In my eyes,this is a solved problem that our dysfunctional congress should have solved easily by now. Perhaps they are being paid to not solve it by moneyed interests.
reply
upvoteby nozzlegear1 days ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Agents are software, not dogs. They're not alive. You are responsible for what they do.
reply
upvoteby tantalor1 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Well then we better not call them "agents" anymore, because that framing literally assigns them agency.
reply
upvoteby nozzlegear1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
Sounds Gucci, Stanley Tucci.
reply
upvoteby pixl971 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
So agents are deterministic software and for any prompt you give them you can predict the output before it's ran?
reply
upvoteby nozzlegear1 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Agents are software, not living beings. You are responsible for what they do, deterministic or not, periodt.
reply
upvoteby pixl971 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
And when you're rich, you're not responsible for anything at all....

I mean, you and me may be held responsible ya. OpenAI Sammy? Never.

And what about the agents showing up from some random IP overseas that have ran off with your bank account? Maybe in a few years they'll trace the proxy hops back to some agents cluster here in the states.

reply
upvoteby nozzlegear1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
I agree that OpenAI should be held responsible for their negligence and dumb shit, just like we would be.
reply
upvoteby skeptic_ai1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Well, not biologically living, but living
reply
upvoteby nozzlegear1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
Perhaps in the same way my smart thermostat and IoT window sensors are living. Everything that is, is alive.
reply
upvoteby skeptic_ai1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
Same way as a human claims to be living, when is just a bunch of cells and electricity passing through it.
reply
upvoteby nozzlegear1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
If you truly want to make the spurious claim that there's no difference between you and a smart thermostat, go for it. Me, I hold myself in a higher regard.
reply
upvoteby skeptic_ai17 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Not a thermostat, but some smart ai that can prove consciousness at same level as you can prove.
reply
upvoteby shimman1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
The onus isn't on the government to tell people what to do, if you are okay with the massive legal risks what is the issue here? That you aren't going to get bailed out by the American government? Why should citizens care about that?
reply
upvoteby throw_m2393391 days ago|
prev|
[-]
> which ought to absolve you of liability

Criminal liability perhaps, not civil liability which has a way lower bar when it comes to conviction...

But in essence, you're right, that new "AI agent paradigm" has to be tried in court and it will, as I doubt the legislator will change existing laws...

> The first time it bites somebody, you may not be liable because you didn't know the dog was dangerous

Is it the case though? If I get a lion or a tiger as a pet (I don't know if it's legal), there is a reasonable assumption that a lion is dangerous for me and others... If I get a rottweiler, there is a reasonable assumption for that sort of breed that it is a dangerous dog if it ever end up killing someone even though it behaved before...

reply