5 ms·

Meaty feet can be held to a fire. To quote IBM, "A computer can never be held accountable."

by jdiff 1y ago

MobiusHorizons 1y ago
This is the question I keep asking leaders (I literally asked a VP this question once in an all hands). How do we approach the risk associated mistakes made by AI?(process, legal, security, insurance etc) We have process and legal agreements in place to deal with humans that work for a business making mistakes. We need analogs for AI if we want to use it in similar ways.
- jpcosta 1y ago
  What was the answer? Asking for a vp friend
  - AdieuToLogic 1y ago
    >>> Meaty feet can be held to a fire. To quote IBM, "A computer can never be held accountable." >> This is the question I keep asking leaders (I literally asked a VP this question once in an all hands). How do we approach the risk associated mistakes made by AI? > What was the answer? Asking for a vp friend This is a difficult issue to tackle, no doubt. What follows drifts into the philosophical realm by necessity. Software exists to provide value to people. Malicious software qualifies as such due to the desires of the actors which produce same, but will no longer be considered here as this is not germane. AI is an umbrella term for numerous algorithms having wide ranging problem domain applicability and often can approximate near-optimal solutions using significantly less resources than other approaches. But they are still algorithms, capable of only one thing - execute their defined logic. Sometimes this logic can produce results similar to be what a person would in a similar situation. Sometimes the logic will produce wildly different results. Often there is significant value when the logic is used appropriately. In all cases AI algorithms do not possess the concept of understanding. This includes derivatives of understanding such as: - empathy - integrity - morals - right - wrong Which brings us back to part of the first quoted post: To quote IBM, "A computer can never be held accountable." Accountability requires justification of actions taken or lack thereof, which demands the ability to explain why said actions were undertaken relative to other options, and implies a potential consequence be imposed by an authority. Algorithms can partially "justify their output" via strategic logging, but that's about it. Which is why "a computer can never be held accountable." Because it is a machine, executing the instructions ultimately initiated by one or more persons whom can be held accountable.
  - MobiusHorizons 1y ago
    In the all hands I got an answer about techniques that would be used to reduce the likelihood of mistakes. Ie not an answer.
- Covenant0028 1y ago
  I suspect the analog will be that the "human in the loop" will bear all the consequences. Perhaps even if they did nothing wrong and are in fact the victim in that situation. Take the case of Linda Yaccarino. Ordinarily, if a male employee publicly and sexually harassed his female CEO on Twitter, he would (and should) be fired immediately. When Grok did that though, it's the CEO who ended up quitting.
- galaxyLogic 1y ago
  My question is if I get some code from AI, save it to a file, then modify it or add some functions to it, can I still claim the copyright for it at the top of the file? Do I need to give the AI any credit? I'm asking because I read somewhere that "AI produced output cannot be copyrighted". But what if I modify that output myself? I am then a co-creator, right, and I think I should have a right to some copyright protection.
  - moi2388 1y ago
    You do.
  - jdiff 1y ago
    First, a few disclaimers, I am not a lawyer and this is an actively evolving area. The answer that most aligns with current precedent to my knowledge is that the parts you modify are protected by your copyright, but the rest remains uncopyrightable. With the exception of any chunks generated that align with someone's existing copyrighted code, as long as those chunks are substantial and unique enough.
    - tuple 1y ago
      This is how I understand it as well. There was a case of a monkey taking a selfie and the photog attempting to assert copyright. Courts determined (if I remember correctly :p ) that only human works are copyrightable and therefore the monkey's selfie could not be copyrighted at all.
      - jdiff 1y ago
        I deleted a whole paragraph with exactly that example, so at least if we're wrong, we're wrong together.
zimpenfish 1y ago
> "A computer can never be held accountable." cf the Post Office scandal in the UK which was partly helped along by the 1999 change in law[1] which repealed the 1984 stance that "computer evidence is not permissible unless it is shown to be working correctly at the time"[0]; i.e. that a computer was now presumed to be working correctly and it was up to the defence to prove otherwise. [0] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/69/1991-02-01 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/69/1991... [1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/23/section/60/1999-07-27 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/23/section/60/1999...

Meaty feet can be held to a fire. To quote IBM, "A computer can never be held accountable."

by jdiff 1y ago

Meaty feet can be held to a fire. To quote IBM, "A computer can never be held accountable."

This is the question I keep asking leaders (I literally asked a VP this question once in an all hands). How do we approach the risk associated mistakes made by AI?(process, legal, security, insurance etc) We have process and legal agreements in place to deal with humans that work for a business making mistakes. We need analogs for AI if we want to use it in similar ways.

jpcosta 1y ago
What was the answer? Asking for a vp friend
- AdieuToLogic 1y ago
  >>> Meaty feet can be held to a fire. To quote IBM, "A computer can never be held accountable." >> This is the question I keep asking leaders (I literally asked a VP this question once in an all hands). How do we approach the risk associated mistakes made by AI? > What was the answer? Asking for a vp friend This is a difficult issue to tackle, no doubt. What follows drifts into the philosophical realm by necessity. Software exists to provide value to people. Malicious software qualifies as such due to the desires of the actors which produce same, but will no longer be considered here as this is not germane. AI is an umbrella term for numerous algorithms having wide ranging problem domain applicability and often can approximate near-optimal solutions using significantly less resources than other approaches. But they are still algorithms, capable of only one thing - execute their defined logic. Sometimes this logic can produce results similar to be what a person would in a similar situation. Sometimes the logic will produce wildly different results. Often there is significant value when the logic is used appropriately. In all cases AI algorithms do not possess the concept of understanding. This includes derivatives of understanding such as: - empathy - integrity - morals - right - wrong Which brings us back to part of the first quoted post: To quote IBM, "A computer can never be held accountable." Accountability requires justification of actions taken or lack thereof, which demands the ability to explain why said actions were undertaken relative to other options, and implies a potential consequence be imposed by an authority. Algorithms can partially "justify their output" via strategic logging, but that's about it. Which is why "a computer can never be held accountable." Because it is a machine, executing the instructions ultimately initiated by one or more persons whom can be held accountable.
- MobiusHorizons 1y ago
  In the all hands I got an answer about techniques that would be used to reduce the likelihood of mistakes. Ie not an answer.
Covenant0028 1y ago
I suspect the analog will be that the "human in the loop" will bear all the consequences. Perhaps even if they did nothing wrong and are in fact the victim in that situation. Take the case of Linda Yaccarino. Ordinarily, if a male employee publicly and sexually harassed his female CEO on Twitter, he would (and should) be fired immediately. When Grok did that though, it's the CEO who ended up quitting.
galaxyLogic 1y ago
My question is if I get some code from AI, save it to a file, then modify it or add some functions to it, can I still claim the copyright for it at the top of the file? Do I need to give the AI any credit? I'm asking because I read somewhere that "AI produced output cannot be copyrighted". But what if I modify that output myself? I am then a co-creator, right, and I think I should have a right to some copyright protection.
- moi2388 1y ago
  You do.
- jdiff 1y ago
  First, a few disclaimers, I am not a lawyer and this is an actively evolving area. The answer that most aligns with current precedent to my knowledge is that the parts you modify are protected by your copyright, but the rest remains uncopyrightable. With the exception of any chunks generated that align with someone's existing copyrighted code, as long as those chunks are substantial and unique enough.
  - tuple 1y ago
    This is how I understand it as well. There was a case of a monkey taking a selfie and the photog attempting to assert copyright. Courts determined (if I remember correctly :p ) that only human works are copyrightable and therefore the monkey's selfie could not be copyrighted at all.
    - jdiff 1y ago
      I deleted a whole paragraph with exactly that example, so at least if we're wrong, we're wrong together.

zimpenfish 1y ago

> "A computer can never be held accountable." cf the Post Office scandal in the UK which was partly helped along by the 1999 change in law[1] which repealed the 1984 stance that "computer evidence is not permissible unless it is shown to be working correctly at the time"[0]; i.e. that a computer was now presumed to be working correctly and it was up to the defence to prove otherwise. [0] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/69/1991-02-01 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/69/1991... [1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/23/section/60/1999-07-27 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/23/section/60/1999...