How would you even track down who deployed the agents? Wouldn't that even incentivize the agent to cover their tracks even better and be untraceable

▲

podocarp an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Criminals also try their best to cover up their tracks but that doesn't mean we don't try to catch them too. So nothing should change for AI powered xyz too. I kind of agree. You can't blame a model for running a red light when you are in the machine as it's operator. It just doesn't make sense. That's just called negligence, and it has always been the case in industrial settings. Robot arm slaps someone to death. I'm sure it's hard to argue its the robot or the manufacturer's fault.

▲

sajithdilshan 30 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

but that's exactly the point, this law would be like suing the car manufacturer because the driver hit a human.

	▲	koliber a few seconds ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Sue the operator. In this case, it seems like OpenAI was testing its own models. The operator and the manufacturer are the same. In cases where the operator is not the manufacturer, the operator can decide if they should in turn sue to manufacturer because they built faulty machinery.
	▲	tekno45 3 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		if the car manufacturer tells you you don't have to think while driving anymore then yeah...
	▲	pyreko 10 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		No? It would be suing the driver rather than blaming the car.
	▲	ginsider_oaks 7 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		more like suing the driver because the (self-driving) car hit a human.

▲

bpodgursky 37 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

The police and government will need to 1000x their AI adoption to successfully attribute crimes to real-world people. We BARELY caught any cybercrime before AI, it is utterly hopeless now unless they lean into the same tools.

▲

zulban an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Indeed. It's another example of a law that sounds good and obvious, but has no thought put into what it would actually end up doing to the world.

So many other problems. If we apply this law to cruise control - simple outcome. We get no cruise control.

	▲	podocarp an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		We still have guns and knives and nail guns and even cars. They automate something, but also have potential to injure and kill. You just weigh the pros and cons. You don't just not do something because there's a risk of death. Cars are basically metal coffins. Just don't drive when drunk, etc? Basic competence and operational safety and responsibility? If cruise control made you free from blame everyone would just be driving drunk off their ass with cruise control on. How is that more thought out?
	▲	AnIrishDuck an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I hate to break it to you, but you are currently still responsible for killing somebody while driving a car on cruise control, especially if you act recklessly. EDIT: to be less snarky, there are obvious exceptions if a manufacturer defect is involved. But I still imagine it turns on things like foreseeability and proximate cause (IANAL). Nevertheless, if you were asleep at the wheel, you're getting held responsible.
	▲	lovich an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Do you think you are liability free if you’re operating a car on cruise control and it kills someone?

▲

cpburns2009 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Agents don't just exist in the aether. Any request is coming from an IP that can be identified at least to a hosting provider.

	▲	sajithdilshan 32 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		not if the requests are proxied. They would just see the public exit node's IP only
	▲	pixl97 an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Lol. In that case NK or Iran might have fun setting up public proxies in their spaces for the lulz just to watch us burn.