| ▲ | ryandrake 3 hours ago |
| Love it. AI as Responsibility Laundering. Like the gun that kills people rather than the murderer. |
|
| ▲ | tshaddox 4 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| I don't know. Any of these criticisms can be applied on a case be case basis, but I think I would be justifiably upset if any of these happened: 1. my qBittorrent client pirated content without me intending it or taking any irresponsible actions that could reasonably be expected to cause it 2. my chatbot illegally infiltrated servers without me intending it or taking any irresponsible actions that could reasonably be expected to cause it 3. my firearm killed a person without me intending it or taking any irresponsible actions that could reasonably be expected to cause it |
|
| ▲ | ghosty141 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I never understood how anybody would think this way. At work for example from day one of using AI our rule was, AI is just a tool and if you break something due to not reviewing the code properly etc. it's on you as if you wrote that code yourself. |
| |
| ▲ | collingreen 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Nobody ACTUALLY thinks this way, they just want to break all the laws and make their billions without any consequences. We've already seen the big ai labs turn around and cry foul when others try to use their content but they are happy to continue doing it themselves. The hypocrisy and willingness to play dumb are kind of staggering. | | |
| ▲ | BloodyIron an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Didn't they literally just give you and example of those who do? | |
| ▲ | fwip an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Imagine if we as a society pretended to believe them, and we had men with guns show up to arrest all their servers. |
| |
| ▲ | tsimionescu an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The company owners have one set of standards for those that work for them, and a completely different set of standards for themselves and for the company itself. If you are using AI and it causes some damage to them, then it's your fault and you'll get reprimanded/fired. If they deploy AI and it causes damage to someone else, then that's proof that AI has extraordinary capabilities that no one could predict and that merit way more investment in this tech. | |
| ▲ | ryandrake 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Well, responsibility laundering isn't exactly new. People use corporations to diffuse responsibility and avoid punishment for crimes all the time. "The corporation did it, not the decision makers in the corporation!" | |
| ▲ | teekert 16 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It’s mostly the anti AI crowd that thinks that people that work LLMs think this way. I’ve never met anyone that actually does think this way. | |
| ▲ | amelius 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | But if you are in a full selfdriving car and it kills someone, is it on the user, or on the vendor of the car? Or does it depend on what is in the EULA and whether the user agreed to it? | | |
| ▲ | adrianmonk 32 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | This is a great rhetorical question. Can you believe that an LLM user is responsible for what the AI does but a self-driving car (SDC) user is not responsible for what the AI does? It doesn't seem very logically consistent. In both cases, the company operating it promises they did lots of things to make it safe. SDC companies talk about testing, redundancy, simulations, and statistics. LLM companies talk about alignment, sandboxes, defense in depth, and restricting access to dangerous capabilities. The one substantial difference I can see is that LLM chats are (nominally) passive but SDCs are active. In a chat, you're just having a conversation and then you're choosing how to act. When riding in a car, you the user are not in the loop between AI and taking action that affects the world around you. So they might be designed and engineered a bit differently. A SDC can't get you to agree to review the steering and braking decisions before they're put into action. Since you're not being asked to take that responsibility, it's more defensible to infer that the service has done whatever is necessary to make it safe. | |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The practical answer is you make sure damages are always covered by insurance, and as long as nobody acts maliciously or with extreme negligence there won't be any need for prison time. | |
| ▲ | 2OEH8eoCRo0 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Depends what outcome will cost the people with the most money the least amount of money. |
| |
| ▲ | kevin_thibedeau 42 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Security tags are just a tool. Doesn't change that you are regarded as a thief when one isn't disabled after you've paid for your new property. | |
| ▲ | gdulli 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You're an employee. This use case is for people much richer than you. | |
| ▲ | devsda an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Its like companies handing over race cars to delivery drivers and telling them to drive responsibly but unofficially tell them that they expect reduced delivery times due to faster cars. Do you think the average rate of accidents will stay the same ? | |
| ▲ | adrianN 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The efficiency of responsibility laundering depends on your social standing. If people like you they welcome reasons not to prosecute you, if you are disliked people might go as far as to start prosecuting you for made up reasons. Institutional rules that require people to break them (eg putting pressure on them to work faster than possible while adhering to all rules) are a great means to selectively enforce them to get rid of undesirables. |
|
|
| ▲ | aleph_minus_one 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Like the gun that kills people rather than the murderer. Relevant (NSFW): > Guns don't kill people, I kill people - with guns > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC03hmS1Brk :-D |
| |
|
| ▲ | EyeEmOe 14 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Corporations will be given benefit of the doubt; ostensibly they have all of society in mind. Individuals in isolation will be demonized for having only their singular interests in mind. |
|
| ▲ | computerdork 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Actually, not sure how to take it, because it can be viewed the opposite way than trying to escape blame for crimes, that it’s a parody of something AI did that everyone is making a big deal about. Not sure what the poster of the mastodon’s tweet was?? |
|
| ▲ | yubblegum 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| https://spia.princeton.edu/news/taliban-legal-system-and-202... That’s not how things work. There is one set of rules for us and another set of rules for the oligarchy and their corporate vehicles. It’s just like the Taliban legal code (see above) where the closer you are to the top the more lenient and ‘understanding’ the system. Edit: worth a pull quote Article 9 explicitly divides Afghan society into hierarchical categories based on social status, including religious scholars (ulema), elites such as tribal leaders and merchants (ashraf), the middle class, and the so-called lower class, assigning different forms and levels of punishment accordingly. This structure grants partial or full impunity to privileged groups while subjecting marginalized individuals to harsher penalties. |
|
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | throw93839394 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| More like dogs. Combat dogs, banned in most countries, with breed name like "literal bull killer" are considered safe. Bonus is no-kill shelters move violent dogs across state border, to clear their bite history, and advertise them as "cute family pets" for adoption. Dogs breaks out of its enclosure, there is no way to stop or predict that! Zero responsibility! Zero punishment! |
| |
