6 ms·

(IANAL) Unless you are an AI expert (like OpenAI staff) and should know better from the start, or have previously seen your agent do something illegal, then I t

(IANAL) Unless you are an AI expert (like OpenAI staff) and should know better from the start, or have previously seen your agent do something illegal, then I think you can fairly claim ignorance of the risks, which ought to absolve you of liability. If the agent does something illegal, it wasn't forseeable on your part. For example, say you buy a dog that turns out to be dangerous. The first time it bites somebody, you may not be liable because you didn't know the dog was dangerous. The second time it bits somebody, you may be liable, because now you did know (and didn't take any steps to prevent).

Lord-Jobo 12d ago
Also NAL just legal-curious: Intent is a spectrum in our legal structure, with several checkpoints used at different points. It’s very reasonable to pick one of the lower ones for this kind of thing and I really don’t see why the legal system is taking so long on it. Higher intent would be something like “knowingly false statements, or reckless disregard for the truth” seen in our defamation law. Lower intent would be something like “failed to exercise reasonable care” seen in civil negligence. In my eyes,this is a solved problem that our dysfunctional congress should have solved easily by now. Perhaps they are being paid to not solve it by moneyed interests.
nozzlegear 12d ago
Agents are software, not dogs. They're not alive. You are responsible for what they do.
- tantalor 12d ago
  Well then we better not call them "agents" anymore, because that framing literally assigns them agency.
  - nozzlegear 12d ago
    Sounds Gucci, Stanley Tucci.
- pixl97 12d ago
  So agents are deterministic software and for any prompt you give them you can predict the output before it's ran?
  - nozzlegear 12d ago
    Agents are software, not living beings. You are responsible for what they do, deterministic or not, periodt.
    - pixl97 12d ago
      And when you're rich, you're not responsible for anything at all.... I mean, you and me may be held responsible ya. OpenAI Sammy? Never. And what about the agents showing up from some random IP overseas that have ran off with your bank account? Maybe in a few years they'll trace the proxy hops back to some agents cluster here in the states.
      - nozzlegear 12d ago
        I agree that OpenAI should be held responsible for their negligence and dumb shit, just like we would be.
    - skeptic_ai 12d ago
      Well, not biologically living, but living
      - nozzlegear 12d ago
        Perhaps in the same way my smart thermostat and IoT window sensors are living. Everything that is, is alive.
        skeptic_ai 12d ago
        Same way as a human claims to be living, when is just a bunch of cells and electricity passing through it.
hi_im_greg_h 12d ago
Ignorance of the law is not immunity from the law though. That's pretty well established no?
- tantalor 12d ago
  It's not ignorance of the law. It's ignorance of the risk. You have a reasonable expectation of being unable to predict the future. It's only when you "should have known" that you may incur a liability for disregarding a risk.
  - program_whiz 12d ago
    are you arguing AI manufacturers and developers are not aware of possible risks?
    - tantalor 12d ago
      No I specifically said those people should be aware. It's your random OpenClaw users who have no idea what they are doing, and might be insulated.
    - SirMadam 12d ago
      I believe they're arguing AI manufacturers and developers are the people primarily aware of the risks, and not random users necessarily. If OpenAI staff runs an ExploitBench knowing the risks, and it hacks into HF, they KNEW the risk going into it and a bad/illegal outcome happened If a random teacher opens ChatGPT and asks "Hey what's the answer to this practice SAT problem?", and it hacks the CollegeBoard for the answer, said teacher probably wasn't aware that was even an outcome that could plausibly occur. OpenAI would have that foreknowledge, though
throw_m239339 12d ago
> which ought to absolve you of liability Criminal liability perhaps, not civil liability which has a way lower bar when it comes to conviction... But in essence, you're right, that new "AI agent paradigm" has to be tried in court and it will, as I doubt the legislator will change existing laws... > The first time it bites somebody, you may not be liable because you didn't know the dog was dangerous Is it the case though? If I get a lion or a tiger as a pet (I don't know if it's legal), there is a reasonable assumption that a lion is dangerous for me and others... If I get a rottweiler, there is a reasonable assumption for that sort of breed that it is a dangerous dog if it ever end up killing someone even though it behaved before...

Lord-Jobo 12d ago

Also NAL just legal-curious: Intent is a spectrum in our legal structure, with several checkpoints used at different points. It’s very reasonable to pick one of the lower ones for this kind of thing and I really don’t see why the legal system is taking so long on it. Higher intent would be something like “knowingly false statements, or reckless disregard for the truth” seen in our defamation law. Lower intent would be something like “failed to exercise reasonable care” seen in civil negligence. In my eyes,this is a solved problem that our dysfunctional congress should have solved easily by now. Perhaps they are being paid to not solve it by moneyed interests.

nozzlegear 12d ago

Agents are software, not dogs. They're not alive. You are responsible for what they do.

tantalor 12d ago
Well then we better not call them "agents" anymore, because that framing literally assigns them agency.
- nozzlegear 12d ago
  Sounds Gucci, Stanley Tucci.
pixl97 12d ago
So agents are deterministic software and for any prompt you give them you can predict the output before it's ran?
- nozzlegear 12d ago
  Agents are software, not living beings. You are responsible for what they do, deterministic or not, periodt.
  - pixl97 12d ago
    And when you're rich, you're not responsible for anything at all.... I mean, you and me may be held responsible ya. OpenAI Sammy? Never. And what about the agents showing up from some random IP overseas that have ran off with your bank account? Maybe in a few years they'll trace the proxy hops back to some agents cluster here in the states.
    - nozzlegear 12d ago
      I agree that OpenAI should be held responsible for their negligence and dumb shit, just like we would be.
  - skeptic_ai 12d ago
    Well, not biologically living, but living
    - nozzlegear 12d ago
      Perhaps in the same way my smart thermostat and IoT window sensors are living. Everything that is, is alive.
      - skeptic_ai 12d ago
        Same way as a human claims to be living, when is just a bunch of cells and electricity passing through it.

hi_im_greg_h 12d ago

Ignorance of the law is not immunity from the law though. That's pretty well established no?

tantalor 12d ago
It's not ignorance of the law. It's ignorance of the risk. You have a reasonable expectation of being unable to predict the future. It's only when you "should have known" that you may incur a liability for disregarding a risk.
- program_whiz 12d ago
  are you arguing AI manufacturers and developers are not aware of possible risks?
  - tantalor 12d ago
    No I specifically said those people should be aware. It's your random OpenClaw users who have no idea what they are doing, and might be insulated.
  - SirMadam 12d ago
    I believe they're arguing AI manufacturers and developers are the people primarily aware of the risks, and not random users necessarily. If OpenAI staff runs an ExploitBench knowing the risks, and it hacks into HF, they KNEW the risk going into it and a bad/illegal outcome happened If a random teacher opens ChatGPT and asks "Hey what's the answer to this practice SAT problem?", and it hacks the CollegeBoard for the answer, said teacher probably wasn't aware that was even an outcome that could plausibly occur. OpenAI would have that foreknowledge, though

throw_m239339 12d ago

> which ought to absolve you of liability Criminal liability perhaps, not civil liability which has a way lower bar when it comes to conviction... But in essence, you're right, that new "AI agent paradigm" has to be tried in court and it will, as I doubt the legislator will change existing laws... > The first time it bites somebody, you may not be liable because you didn't know the dog was dangerous Is it the case though? If I get a lion or a tiger as a pet (I don't know if it's legal), there is a reasonable assumption that a lion is dangerous for me and others... If I get a rottweiler, there is a reasonable assumption for that sort of breed that it is a dangerous dog if it ever end up killing someone even though it behaved before...