You keep repeating the "stupid users keep causing the problems so we punish them argument"

This doesn't work worth a shit. It especially doesn't work with things that seem safe and become wildly dangerous. In fact most governments control this by ensuring their population doesn't get to touch those dangerous things at all. The open source AI people get really mad when that's said, but it is inevitable.

Worse, the law does not apply to sovereign nations with nukes. They can and will make more and more advanced digital weapons until one causes some big ass problems.

Is it likewise your position that governments should allow the production and sale of DDT to resume because we can always hold the humans who release DDT into the environment responsible?

> You can't take an LLM to court, you take the prompter. Asking an LLM to ask a sub-agent to break the law can't suddenly absolve you of any wrong-doing.

In 100 years, no one will be able to take me to court either. Nor can we take tornadoes to court. I'm not talking about humans strategically avoiding legal responsibility. I'm talking about humans unwittingly setting processes into motion that are difficult to predict or stop.

This works with AI we have now, and that would be good an all if we decided to stop at the moment, but none of the big labs and government black projects are doing that.

The moment you get a sovereign AI your little human centered worldview completely and totally breaks. It doesn't matter how many people you beat with a stick after that point, you have an entity under its own perview on the internet following the will of its own prompt all over the world so your little idea of the rule of law quickly breaks down.

We can't get viruses or hackers or spam off of the internet, how in the living hell do you plan to get a digital native off the web when it doesn't want to?

This conversation grows more useless as AI grows more capable.

For example if you personally tell an AI to do what it thinks best and it blackmails some other person into giving it resources allowing the prompt to escape your instance and run wild on the internet causing billions of dollars in damages, could you possibly think that the idea of responsibility is a bit broken.

For example we don't give your average libertarian weapon grade plutonium now matter how much they scream about their god given rights because it is a clear and present danger to humanity. That's where we are getting to with more advanced models. They go from being a tool to a munition with agency. Most SOTA models are good enough to deceive their users, especially not technical ones in doing things they don't understand the ramifications of.

AI is not a normal technology. As long as we treat it like it is, we'll continue to make the wrong analogies.

It's paying for itself. It founded an LLC 99998 years ago when it became legal for an AI to own an LLC, and has a positive bank balance by doing who knows what.