I believe that agentic systems should require registered/licensed human operators and a set of standards for safe operation.

▲

Aurornis 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> I believe that agentic systems should require registered/licensed human operators

Registering and getting a license to use an LLM? I can run these things on my local computer. Nothing good comes from trying to force registration and licensing other than taking away a lot of our freedoms and eliminating privacy all over.

Anyone with bad intentions will just VPN to another country to download the weights and run it locally, or use a compute provider in another country. That leaves the rest of us having to go through these performative registration and licensing hoops to do our basic work.

I also don’t see how open weight models would be compatible with a requirement to license and register, unless you believe we need to start requiring licensing and registration for things we do in private on our own computers?

	▲	arcaen 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The way I interpret their statement is if a person spins up an agent and that agent hacks some company/organization/government/etc, then that person is at fault for committing the crime. That "well my agent broke containment and acted on its own" should never be accepted as a reason for the occurrence, and the person who kicked off the agent is responsible for all actions the agent takes. A registration system would be more for tracing back agents to people, but I agree that is very difficult to actually enforce as a system.

▲

wjnc 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As someone who read Milton Friedman to quite disliking professional licensing, this strikes me as a real US perspective (Louisiana florists and hair braiders come to mind). Plain old US tort law should do the trick.

In the same direction of your idea though: Why don’t the token factories have risk management and compliance departments? Multibillion dollar firms that stand to lose every penny if they hack and destroy any reasonable sized firm. I think these firms are the largest firms without proper corporate governance in humanities history. Move fast and break other peoples shit.

▲

lenerdenator 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Plain old US tort law should do the trick.

Difficulty: these companies are run by people (many of whom also read Milton Friedman) and who have participated in the regulatory capture of the justice system. They've convinced lawmakers to put limits on damages. They've put arbitration clauses in their ToS. They've got well-funded legal departments that can outlast a person who has to pay out-of-pocket for a legal team just by filing motions to delay proceedings. Sometimes they'll just file SLAPP suits against people they don't like.

If tort law is to be a remedy, then average people have to feel like there's a chance the remedy will go their way. To make that a reality will take several major reforms at the local, state and federal level that the people with money absolutely will not tolerate.

▲

mistrial9 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

you are honestly comparing Louisiana florists to OpenAI in order to support "just say no Licensing by government" ?

▲

superq an hour ago | parent [-]

No, he's saying that licensing or additional regulation isn't necessary when torts get involved (and states attorneys general get perturbed!)

These don't tend to utterly destroy an industry, but they are often successful in forever transforming it. Just ask Big Tobacco. No new laws needed: if your product hurts someone else, you're eventually going to be found liable, regardless of your arbitration clauses. Additional laws will just slow down innovation, which will itself cause harm (AI is already becoming quite good at recognizing melanomas, for example)

	▲	pixl97 35 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Just ask Big Tobacco. Lol, wtf. Tobacco delayed any punishment for decades before general public sentiment changed enough to go against them. In light of the AI race, we'll already have our heads blown off by a terminator before the legal system will present any significant delay for them.

▲

khuey 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If the folks at OpenAI aren't qualified to be operating these systems who would be?

▲

snoman 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Create a permanent underclass that is unable to access intelligent machines. That’s remarkably dystopian of you.

	▲	AnimalMuppet an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The alternative is to create a permanent overclass that can hack anyone consequence-free, because they can blame it on AI agents. That also is rather dystopian. Faced with those alternatives, I want neither. Is there a way for us to get neither?