Liability you mean?

In my opinion all AI use companies should be attached to a specific employee, and that person is liable and so is the company of course for the actions of the AI

▲

nl 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is a useless statement.

It's like saying "developers should be responsible for their own security so we will make them liable if a random node dependency in the application they are building gets pwned"

Firstly, liability and security are different things.

Employees should never be liable for something that happens if they are using a work-supplied tool at work in the manner in which it is designed to be used.

Secondly, it's just lazy thinking to say "oh it's hard therefore we'll make the human sorely responsible".

There are many things that can help - sandboxing, adversarial LLM inspection of prompts, separation of security contexts etc. Yes they are hard and might need new primitives.

▲

dofm 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> Employees should never be liable for something that happens if they are using a work-supplied tool at work in the manner in which it is designed to be used.

Architects and properly-designated publishers both have potentially long liability that is to an extent independent of their future employment. (The same is true of hospital consultants and others)

In significant cases, the way you provoke companies to do the right thing (security, sticking to the facts, not cutting corners in building plans) is to make someone legally responsible if they don't. That person's liability is limited by their actions — if they can demonstrate they discharge those responsibilities appropriately, they are in the clear.

That person takes on that designated role, does the job, and is rewarded properly for the responsibility it involves. They embody the push to reduce that risk.

So an average employee using the tool as directed by their employer, they do not have liability if the company has designated someone in this role. (And in this scenario, if they have not, there would be a punitive fine for that, independent of other outcomes).

I have no particular problem with the notion that a corporate AI safety/responsibility officer is a plausible way forward. If you are delegating responsibility to a machine, someone has to be on the hook. Without such things it's a wild west with lawyers. That's not sustainable.

▲

nl 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Sure, as an oversight role the way some jurisdictions have personal liability for board members for financial oversight that makes sense.

	▲	dofm an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I guess in some situations it's already baked in, right? A news organisation's liability for AI hallucination falls on the same person that the liability for printing a lie does: the publisher.

▲

dofm 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I have come to this conclusion myself.

It's a bit like the idea of the additional responsibility/burden of the publisher of a newspaper.

▲

idiotsecant 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A particular c suite employee. Each company having a low level sacrificial goat doesn't solve anything. They must be responsible but also be in charge.

▲

0c3ca83 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"why hire humans?

"So we can sue them when our customers get angry"

	▲	rubikscube09 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		like it or not this is what's going to happen
	▲	expedition32 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		This is pretty much what happened with that terrible train disaster in Spain. You can either target systemic problems or chop of some heads to cool off the masses- and quickly go back to work.