Good point. CEOs of companies are often held personally accountable for corporate malfeasance by "the current legal framework".

▲

fooker 13 hours ago | parent [-]

I understand your sarcasm but that’s what the limited in LLC is for.

Unbounded liability means nobody starts a business, or they do it under the table without responsibility or taxes.

Turns out we want successful private businesses much more than we want to hold a few nasty CEOs accountable.

▲

valleyer 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I agree. I just thought it was funny that someone was pointing out the legal unaccountability of an AI in this context.

▲

inkyoto 13 hours ago | parent [-]

There is no need for two penny sarcasm.

I deliberately stopped short of invoking golden parachutes and the numerous other escape hatches available at that altitude, as I am perfectly aware they exist. I am equally aware of chief executives who have departed with remarkable agility from organisations they themselves had first steered off the cliff.

My point, however, remains the same: as the letter of the law presently stands, AI can't be made accountable – at least not today.

	▲	vasco 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The sarcasm was pretty funny so it has some utility, no need to be so serious

▲

nradov 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

LLCs and other corporate structures only (mostly) protect employees and shareholders from civil judgments. CEOs and other executives are also at risk of criminal penalties for Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) violations and similar. Actual criminal prosecutions of CEOs have been few, but not zero.

https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/oklahomacity/press-release...

	▲	fooker 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The typical corporate trick is to argue that the corporation itself is responsible for any wrongdoing, not a particular executive. I can totally see this blame being shifted to AI in a "nobody got fired for choosing IBM" way.