6 ms·

People have caused lots of damage with bulldozers.

by IcyWindows 25d ago

Zecc 25d ago
And? Are you suggesting the driving of bulldozers shouldn't be regulated?
- themaninthedark 24d ago
  It's not. Nor are tractors, excavators or a myriad of other heavy equipment. I saw upthread someone saying that manufactures should be liable if someone uses their products to cause harm. While emotionally this might make us feel good w.r.t. Guns, think about that when carried over to other industries. Someone got hit, sue Ford. They didn't put in enough sensors to detect pedestrians and auto brake. Someone hacked, sue Microsoft. They didn't do enough to detect malice action. Someone 3D printed a gun and used it? Sue Bamboo, they didn't stop someone from printing illegal guns... oh wait already reaching this step.
bgun 25d ago
If your point is that we should regulate AI as least as strictly as industrial vehicles, I agree.
- esikich 25d ago
  Afaik anyone can buy a bulldozer. Whether or not you are licensed to operate it is a different story, but there's nothing stopping you short of your conscience.
  - mcv 25d ago
    Licensed or not, you're fully liable for any damage you do with it. And possibly go to prison. I'd like to see crime committed by AI held to the same standards as crimes committed with any other tool.
    - hnfong 24d ago
      I don't think the law makes a distinction over what tool you use to commit a crime. The problem with AI is that the AI might do something that would constitute a crime (eg. attempting to land malicious code via a PR), but the general legal standard to convict a person of a crime is malicious intent (or sometimes negligence). If the human user instructs the AI to do X and the AI does X by committing crimes in the process, the prosecution usually has to prove the human intended this to happen (or is somehow criminally negligent). For traditional tools, the user has much greater control over the tool so the intention can be more easily deduced from the results. For AI, at least for now, results can be wild. I don't think the legal system is prepared to put people in prison because their AI randomly ran amok after being given an innocuous prompt. This is analogous to holding a driver criminally liable for harming people due to a serious malfunction of the vehicle. If anything, I think more liability should be imposed on AI developers.
      - wongarsu 24d ago
        I'd assume that after some number of news stories about AI agents committing crimes, the threshold for criminal negligence should be easy to reach for anyone who doesn't take proper precautions A lot of negligence is of the "the last 30 times nothing went wrong" type, and the dangers are increasingly well known
        hnfong 24d ago
        I generally agree. But the field is evolving too fast for the legal system. I'd imagine regulation and enforcement will come when things are starting to settle down. The analogies with vehicles being inherently dangerous and require extra regulation are apt, because safety measures (eg. speed limits, seat belts, comprehensive road safety rules etc.) were implemented bit by bit, but way after the cars had been invented...
      - mcv 24d ago
        > I don't think the law makes a distinction over what tool you use to commit a crime. The law might not, but enforcement definitely does. Crimes committed through a corporation are often ignored.

People have caused lots of damage with bulldozers.

Zecc 25d ago

And? Are you suggesting the driving of bulldozers shouldn't be regulated?

themaninthedark 24d ago
It's not. Nor are tractors, excavators or a myriad of other heavy equipment. I saw upthread someone saying that manufactures should be liable if someone uses their products to cause harm. While emotionally this might make us feel good w.r.t. Guns, think about that when carried over to other industries. Someone got hit, sue Ford. They didn't put in enough sensors to detect pedestrians and auto brake. Someone hacked, sue Microsoft. They didn't do enough to detect malice action. Someone 3D printed a gun and used it? Sue Bamboo, they didn't stop someone from printing illegal guns... oh wait already reaching this step.

bgun 25d ago

If your point is that we should regulate AI as least as strictly as industrial vehicles, I agree.

esikich 25d ago
Afaik anyone can buy a bulldozer. Whether or not you are licensed to operate it is a different story, but there's nothing stopping you short of your conscience.
- mcv 25d ago
  Licensed or not, you're fully liable for any damage you do with it. And possibly go to prison. I'd like to see crime committed by AI held to the same standards as crimes committed with any other tool.
  - hnfong 24d ago
    I don't think the law makes a distinction over what tool you use to commit a crime. The problem with AI is that the AI might do something that would constitute a crime (eg. attempting to land malicious code via a PR), but the general legal standard to convict a person of a crime is malicious intent (or sometimes negligence). If the human user instructs the AI to do X and the AI does X by committing crimes in the process, the prosecution usually has to prove the human intended this to happen (or is somehow criminally negligent). For traditional tools, the user has much greater control over the tool so the intention can be more easily deduced from the results. For AI, at least for now, results can be wild. I don't think the legal system is prepared to put people in prison because their AI randomly ran amok after being given an innocuous prompt. This is analogous to holding a driver criminally liable for harming people due to a serious malfunction of the vehicle. If anything, I think more liability should be imposed on AI developers.
    - wongarsu 24d ago
      I'd assume that after some number of news stories about AI agents committing crimes, the threshold for criminal negligence should be easy to reach for anyone who doesn't take proper precautions A lot of negligence is of the "the last 30 times nothing went wrong" type, and the dangers are increasingly well known
      - hnfong 24d ago
        I generally agree. But the field is evolving too fast for the legal system. I'd imagine regulation and enforcement will come when things are starting to settle down. The analogies with vehicles being inherently dangerous and require extra regulation are apt, because safety measures (eg. speed limits, seat belts, comprehensive road safety rules etc.) were implemented bit by bit, but way after the cars had been invented...
    - mcv 24d ago
      > I don't think the law makes a distinction over what tool you use to commit a crime. The law might not, but enforcement definitely does. Crimes committed through a corporation are often ignored.