20 ms·

Good point. CEOs of companies are often held personally accountable for corporate malfeasance by "the current legal framework".

fooker 23d ago
I understand your sarcasm but that’s what the limited in LLC is for. Unbounded liability means nobody starts a business, or they do it under the table without responsibility or taxes. Turns out we want successful private businesses much more than we want to hold a few nasty CEOs accountable.
- valleyer 23d ago
  I agree. I just thought it was funny that someone was pointing out the legal unaccountability of an AI in this context.
  - inkyoto 23d ago
    There is no need for two penny sarcasm. I deliberately stopped short of invoking golden parachutes and the numerous other escape hatches available at that altitude, as I am perfectly aware they exist. I am equally aware of chief executives who have departed with remarkable agility from organisations they themselves had first steered off the cliff. My point, however, remains the same: as the letter of the law presently stands, AI can't be made accountable – at least not today.
    - vasco 23d ago
      The sarcasm was pretty funny so it has some utility, no need to be so serious
- nradov 23d ago
  LLCs and other corporate structures only (mostly) protect employees and shareholders from civil judgments. CEOs and other executives are also at risk of criminal penalties for Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) violations and similar. Actual criminal prosecutions of CEOs have been few, but not zero. https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/oklahomacity/press-releases/2010/ok111210.htm https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/oklahomacity/press-release...
  - fooker 23d ago
    The typical corporate trick is to argue that the corporation itself is responsible for any wrongdoing, not a particular executive. I can totally see this blame being shifted to AI in a "nobody got fired for choosing IBM" way.

fooker 23d ago

I understand your sarcasm but that’s what the limited in LLC is for. Unbounded liability means nobody starts a business, or they do it under the table without responsibility or taxes. Turns out we want successful private businesses much more than we want to hold a few nasty CEOs accountable.

valleyer 23d ago
I agree. I just thought it was funny that someone was pointing out the legal unaccountability of an AI in this context.
- inkyoto 23d ago
  There is no need for two penny sarcasm. I deliberately stopped short of invoking golden parachutes and the numerous other escape hatches available at that altitude, as I am perfectly aware they exist. I am equally aware of chief executives who have departed with remarkable agility from organisations they themselves had first steered off the cliff. My point, however, remains the same: as the letter of the law presently stands, AI can't be made accountable – at least not today.
  - vasco 23d ago
    The sarcasm was pretty funny so it has some utility, no need to be so serious
nradov 23d ago
LLCs and other corporate structures only (mostly) protect employees and shareholders from civil judgments. CEOs and other executives are also at risk of criminal penalties for Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) violations and similar. Actual criminal prosecutions of CEOs have been few, but not zero. https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/oklahomacity/press-releases/2010/ok111210.htm https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/oklahomacity/press-release...
- fooker 23d ago
  The typical corporate trick is to argue that the corporation itself is responsible for any wrongdoing, not a particular executive. I can totally see this blame being shifted to AI in a "nobody got fired for choosing IBM" way.