5 ms·
Criminals also try their best to cover up their tracks but that doesn't mean we don't try to catch them too. So nothing should change for AI powered xyz too. I
by podocarp 12d ago
Criminals also try their best to cover up their tracks but that doesn't mean we don't try to catch them too. So nothing should change for AI powered xyz too. I kind of agree. You can't blame a model for running a red light when you are in the machine as it's operator. It just doesn't make sense. That's just called negligence, and it has always been the case in industrial settings. Robot arm slaps someone to death. I'm sure it's hard to argue its the robot or the manufacturer's fault.
- bpodgursky 12d agoThe police and government will need to 1000x their AI adoption to successfully attribute crimes to real-world people. We BARELY caught any cybercrime before AI, it is utterly hopeless now unless they lean into the same tools.
- sajithdilshan 12d agobut that's exactly the point, this law would be like suing the car manufacturer because the driver hit a human.
- pyreko 12d agoNo? It would be suing the driver rather than blaming the car.
- ginsider_oaks 12d agomore like suing the driver because the (self-driving) car hit a human.
- tekno45 12d agoif the car manufacturer tells you you don't have to think while driving anymore then yeah...
- koliber 12d agoSue the operator. In this case, it seems like OpenAI was testing its own models. The operator and the manufacturer are the same. In cases where the operator is not the manufacturer, the operator can decide if they should in turn sue to manufacturer because they built faulty machinery.
- NothingAboutAny 12d agoI mean you only need at add the stipulation that there was clear negligence or malice in your instructions to the agent. like we already do with a bunch of other crimes.