| ▲ | 2ndorderthought 4 hours ago |
| Accountability is the prevailing missing ingredient in us society. |
|
| ▲ | voncheese 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| To expand on this a little more, the absence of accountability contributes to the loss of learning. Mistakes and errors will always happen, whether they are sourced by humans or machines. But something (the human or the machine) has to be able to take accountability to have the opportunity to learn and improve so the chances of the same mistake happening again go down. Since machines don't yet have the ability to take accountability, it falls on the human to do that. And organizations must enable / enforce this so they too can learn and improve. Without that, there's a lot of dependency being pushed on the machine to (cross fingers) not make the same mistake again. |
|
| ▲ | onlyrealcuzzo 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > The problem is that people are now building our world around tooling that eschews accountability. Management has doing a wonderful job of eschewing accountability for decades. It's a lot of people's dream to be able to say, yeah, our product doesn't work, but it's not OUR fault, and the client just shrug and grumble ai ai ai, and just put up with it because they know they can't get a better service anywhere else. It's not MY fault my website is down: it's Amazon's! It's not MY fault my app doesn't work: it's Claude Code's! |
| |
| ▲ | bilbo0s 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well just to be clear from a legal perspective, in the case of AI, as long as AI is "property", the owners, developers, and/or users will be held liable for things like the hypothetical fatal car accident that Sussman posits. Currently, from a legal perspective, AI is considered a "tool" without legal persona. So you sue the developer, the owner, or the user of the AI. (Just kidding, any lawyer worth his/her salt will sue all three! But you get the point.) Legally speaking, AI will probably be viewed that way for a long time. There are too many issues agitating against viewing it any other way. Owners will not give up property rights. No will to overbear. On and on and on. |
|
|
| ▲ | cheschire 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I don’t think it’s missing, I just think it’s seen as a liability, and American society has been known to absolutely obliterate people who are liable. Everyone thinks they have the right to judge, and use the massive amounts of available information to do so, even if they haven’t been trained to judge. |
| |
| ▲ | 2ndorderthought 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | List the companies who received a fine worthy of the damage they caused in recent history. List the ones who didn't. It's not about judging. We are socializing the losses to the public and capitalizing the profits for the already wealthy. | | |
| ▲ | QuantumNomad_ 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | We dont know the final amount, as they settled out of court, but in 1992 a woman was awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars by the judge after receiving third degree burns from a coffee at a McDonalds. She had originally asked for $20,000 to cover medical expenses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau... If instead this happened in another part of the world instead of the USA, I doubt that McDonalds would have had to pay much if anything in a similar situation. And the point is that it seems that especially in the USA the companies are very avoidant of ever admitting fault for anything happening to their customers, for fear of lawsuits where they have to pay a lot of money to individual people. | | |
| ▲ | pjc50 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is such a litmus test, this case. Yes, America does weird things with punitive damages. But the injuries were really severe and the negligence significant. More often you get class action lawsuits where everyone involved gets mailed a cheque for $3. It's not just America. McDonald's UK got involved in the UK's biggest ever libel case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case ; leaflets distributed in 1985 ended up resulting in a human rights judgement in 2005, after a lifetime of litigation and millions spent. | | | |
| ▲ | Exoristos 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | McDonald's revenue in 1992 was almost $5,000,000,000.[0] 0. https://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/24/business/mcdonald-s-net-u... | | |
| ▲ | QuantumNomad_ an hour ago | parent [-] | | And yet even the $20,000 she initially asked for to cover health expenses was apparently too much according to McD execs. |
| |
| ▲ | 2ndorderthought 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | When healthcare is free the amount of damages is harder to claim maybe? |
|
|
|