| ▲ | andsoitis 2 hours ago |
| The difference is humans can be held accountable. An AI cannot. |
|
| ▲ | eviks 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| "A corporation cannot" didn't stop legal birth of those |
| |
| ▲ | andsoitis 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > "A corporation cannot" didn't stop legal birth of those In a corporation, the humans running it can be punished. An AI cannot be punished. | | |
| ▲ | SoftTalker 35 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | The corporation that owns the AI could be punished. This isn't more complicated than any other product liability situation, IMO. | |
| ▲ | PunchyHamster an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | LLCs were invented precisely to go around that in most cases | | |
| ▲ | SoftTalker 33 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | LLCs were invented to provide a layer of separation between business assets and the personal assets of the owner or owners. An LLC is a civil construct, it offers no protection from responsibility for criminal behavior. | |
| ▲ | andsoitis an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not for the most important things, like murdering people, fraud, etc. Executives are prosecuted for these kinds of things and the mere fact that it can happen shapes their behavior. An AI cannot be punished at all. So they will not behave with that in mind. |
|
| |
| ▲ | aaroninsf an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's an indictment of contemporary capitalism, not a precedent to follow. |
|
|
| ▲ | newsomix9xl 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That's not true. Humans write AI, and humans can held responsible for writing bad software. And corporations already create fictions that are held accountable in lieu of peoples private assets. So, I disagree. |
| |
| ▲ | andsoitis 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | As long as some human or group of humans are above the AI that runs the company and can be held accountable, I'm fine with it. But if the idea is that an AI runs the company and there is no human ultimately accountable for the AI, then that is very very dangerous. | | |
| ▲ | debazel an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Is it really anymore dangerous than having minimum wage workers serving as fall guys for approving prompts they have no understanding over? | |
| ▲ | warkdarrior an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | And how are you going to prevent an AI-managed company? I'm working on the software stack for that, so it'd be useful to think through options. | | |
| ▲ | ThrowawayR2 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Is there a jurisdiction anywhere in the civilized world that doesn't legally require "natural persons" (legal jargon for a flesh and blood human being) to fill the positions for corporate officers? Those corporate officers can face civil and criminal liability for any wrongdoing even if they are merely meat proxies executing the commands of an AI. Even if some group of fools were willing to sign up blindly to be corporate officers, they would probably betray the mastermind at the first sign of legal trouble. | |
| ▲ | andsoitis an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > And how are you going to prevent an AI-managed company? Be one of the voices that explain the danger in handing over control to non-humans. Vote for politicians who understand the danger and who I think will fight it. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | narrator an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The difference is AI has no time preference. Even the most determined anti-social person does not like having his time wasted. AI can sit there waiting for your prompt for a billion years and not care. |
