With AI, we give it the ability to do things. As we can give it this ability, we are responsible for what it does with that ability. LLMs are predictive models, and while we can expect things to go right, we know that things can also go wrong. As such, it is our responsibility to limit or sanitize their output. If you are the one giving unrestricted and unsanitized tool access to a large language model, then you are the one who is responsible for the consequences of that access - good or bad.

▲

ACCount37 22 minutes ago | parent [-]

You gave the tree the ability to fall when you decided to plant it. It wouldn't have that ability if you didn't. And we already know that trees can fall, don't we?

That doesn't make you inherently responsible for the tree falling down in a freak storm 3 decades down the line.

	▲	Retro_Dev 11 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Let me amend: We can't find someone to blame for forces of nature. This includes an earthquake, tsunami, etc. Insurance can help recover from these events, but nobody is "responsible" for the events happening. This may or may not include healthy trees falling. LLMs are not a force of nature, and we can and do expect them to have erroneous output. We can and do assign responsibility to the humans who use LLMs. Again, they are not a force of nature. We control them, we give them the ability to do bad things, so it's pretty obvious that there would be responsibility and blame attached for when things go wrong.