Criminals also try their best to cover up their tracks but that doesn't mean we don't try to catch them too. So nothing should change for AI powered xyz too. I kind of agree. You can't blame a model for running a red light when you are in the machine as it's operator. It just doesn't make sense. That's just called negligence, and it has always been the case in industrial settings. Robot arm slaps someone to death. I'm sure it's hard to argue its the robot or the manufacturer's fault.
replybut that's exactly the point, this law would be like suing the car manufacturer because the driver hit a human.
replySue the operator. In this case, it seems like OpenAI was testing its own models. The operator and the manufacturer are the same.
replyIn cases where the operator is not the manufacturer, the operator can decide if they should in turn sue to manufacturer because they built faulty machinery.
No? It would be suing the driver rather than blaming the car.
replyif the car manufacturer tells you you don't have to think while driving anymore then yeah...
replymore like suing the driver because the (self-driving) car hit a human.
replyI mean you only need at add the stipulation that there was clear negligence or malice in your instructions to the agent.
like we already do with a bunch of other crimes.
replyThe police and government will need to 1000x their AI adoption to successfully attribute crimes to real-world people. We BARELY caught any cybercrime before AI, it is utterly hopeless now unless they lean into the same tools.
replyAgents don't just exist in the aether. Any request is coming from an IP that can be identified at least to a hosting provider.
replynot if the requests are proxied. They would just see the public exit node's IP only
replyThis is like saying that because murderers can wear masks, therefore it's pointless to prosecute murderers.
replyLol. In that case NK or Iran might have fun setting up public proxies in their spaces for the lulz just to watch us burn.
replyIndeed. It's another example of a law that sounds good and obvious, but has no thought put into what it would actually end up doing to the world.
replySo many other problems. If we apply this law to cruise control - simple outcome. We get no cruise control.
We still have guns and knives and nail guns and even cars. They automate something, but also have potential to injure and kill. You just weigh the pros and cons. You don't just not do something because there's a risk of death. Cars are basically metal coffins. Just don't drive when drunk, etc? Basic competence and operational safety and responsibility? If cruise control made you free from blame everyone would just be driving drunk off their ass with cruise control on. How is that more thought out?
replyIf you engage cruise control, and it starts to accelerate uncontrollable, or swerves your steering wheel sharply and causes an accident, then you can sue the manufacturer. The cruise control did not work as intended.
replyThe reason why we have cruise control is that manufacturers went to great lengths to make sure that it works as intended. Threat of lawsuits is what made them do that.
Do you think you are liability free if you’re operating a car on cruise control and it kills someone?
replyNo. But almost always, the car company is fine.
replyThe OP was suggesting whoever deploys the agent has liability for its actions, not the creators of the models the agents are running.
replyI hate to break it to you, but you are currently still responsible for killing somebody while driving a car on cruise control, especially if you act recklessly.
replyEDIT: to be less snarky, there are obvious exceptions if a manufacturer defect is involved. But I still imagine it turns on things like foreseeability and proximate cause (IANAL). Nevertheless, if you were asleep at the wheel, you're getting held responsible.