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.

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?

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.