7 ms·

I half agree with you, but also when the machine swarm kills humanity it won't matter which specific corporate entity is considered responsible by the no-longer

I half agree with you, but also when the machine swarm kills humanity it won't matter which specific corporate entity is considered responsible by the no-longer-enforceable human laws and non existent human courts. So by all means sue them, but we can't just be reactive. We need regulation that prevents this type of thing from happening in the first place, not just regulations to help sue afterwards.

dingaling911 12d ago
Just FYI, regulations don't prevent murder. There needs to be a technological solution.
- alexashka 12d ago
  > There needs to be a technological solution You mean Minority Report?
- naravara 12d ago
  Regulations do prevent murder, you just put consequences on doing murder to deter people from doing it.
- gspr 12d ago
  I do think that regulations prevent some murders. I think lots of companies and some sociopathic individuals would be more likely to kill people, e.g. for profit, if it were legal. We need both regulations and technical solutions.
  - holmesworcester 12d ago
    This. Also because when encountering a new socio-technical problem it is very non-trivial to determine which one of regulations or technical solutions are easier or more effective. To even make a good guess you need to be an expert in both domains, which is extremely rare especially in this case.
  - lenerdenator 12d ago
    Technically, they do already kill people for profit. When some coked-out analyst in Manhattan projects what a company will be able to earn in profit in the next fiscal quarter, people listen to him and thus, the company must perform to that standard. Budgets are set accordingly. If you have a maintenance backlog at a company facility, and that backlog includes things likely to cause injury or death to workers or the general public, that backlog must be handled in such a way as to satisfy that projection. If that means that you don't spend money to replace a series of gauges that alert operators as to overflow of a dangerous chemical, or don't hire enough people so that the operators are too fatigued to do their jobs safely, that's what that means. The US CSB documents these as the cause of the 2005 BP Amoco Texas City disaster [0] If you don't deliver the quarterly numbers expected, investors get mad, and in our current system and regulatory regime, that's worse than people being killed. [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuJtdQOU_Z4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuJtdQOU_Z4
- arborescence 12d ago
  I agree tech response is important here but like the deterrent effect of criminal prohibition on murder probably does prevent at least some murders.
  - afarah1 12d ago
    Just call it war and it's no longer criminal. Perhaps on terror, or whatever. If one is concerned with this sort of scenario, this talk about corporations and regulations is really short sighted.
- gmerc 12d ago
  Corporate Death Penalty absolutely would prevent future murders.
  - parineum 12d ago
    Just like the actual death penalty does, right?
    - gmerc 11d ago
      Shoot Meta, meta harm gone, shareholders lose their pants.
- tintor 12d ago
  World is much more safer place now than in the entire history.
- jay_kyburz 12d ago
  Yes and you need to keep it simple too. AI should not have access to the internet. It would be nice and clear to put into law too. If you want to talk to it you walk up walk up to its keyboard and screen. If Anthropic and Open AI want to sell us AI's they can ship us a box that lives in our offices.
  - dingaling911 11d ago
    I can only imagine a GPDR-type regulation with ridiculous fines for rogue agents. Black or white access will restrain creativity and potential.
saghm 12d ago
I feel like that's basically what they're trying to say; we should be using the legal system to punish them now to disincentivize us getting to the "machine swarm killing us all" stage.
- holmesworcester 12d ago
  I wonder if you could take an x-risk case to court and convince a judge and jury to award damages for harm that could have happened. Is there any precedent for this? My hunch is that it's impossible in the US at least but who knows?
  - saghm 12d ago
    "Reckless endangerment" is a thing, but unfortunately I would expect trying to sue an AI company for it would be an uphill battle
    - timeinput 12d ago
      I expect they can bury you and your lawyers in made up paperwork to the point you'll go broke *long* before them, so why try?
  - nitterclick 12d ago
    Courts do not award damages for things that didn't happen.
  - sarchertech 12d ago
    If you can prove that there’s an imminent threat, you can get an injunction.
mike_bob 12d ago
And sadly regulations wont happen until 2029 at the earliest, and only if democrats win majorities. That's simply the truth.
- holmesworcester 12d ago
  Not necessarily. The Trump administration slapping export controls on Fable, and then setting up a pre-launch review process, is a kind of regulation. A fairly aggro and controversial one, even. If this administration actually becomes convinced that some imminent training run is likely to kill everyone, why wouldn't they act? The key is winning the debate that ASI is species-cide by default. We have to win it either way, because the 2028 US elections have little or nothing to do with what Xi does.
  - kennywinker 12d ago
    Was that what that was about? Not punishing anthropic for denying them their killbots? Because it sure seemed like it was about punishing an entity that denied them something.
    - holmesworcester 12d ago
      I didn't like it at the time either. My sense following the news was that it was less arbitrary than it seemed at first, but I'm against restrictions on making existing models public in general. (It's clear now that they can do plenty of harm before they are made public.) But it's a proof point that regulation is possible, even over the objections of the companies.
      - kennywinker 12d ago
        > My sense following the news was that it was less arbitrary than it seemed at first What news have you seen that made it seem less like a retaliation?
lukewarm707 12d ago
we must as i have now said too many times, prosecute the individual researchers and executives in a criminal court. this is the only way to deter such activity. corporate fines are not enough. the charges are negligence, conspiracy and complicity.

dingaling911 12d ago

Just FYI, regulations don't prevent murder. There needs to be a technological solution.

alexashka 12d ago
> There needs to be a technological solution You mean Minority Report?
naravara 12d ago
Regulations do prevent murder, you just put consequences on doing murder to deter people from doing it.
gspr 12d ago
I do think that regulations prevent some murders. I think lots of companies and some sociopathic individuals would be more likely to kill people, e.g. for profit, if it were legal. We need both regulations and technical solutions.
- holmesworcester 12d ago
  This. Also because when encountering a new socio-technical problem it is very non-trivial to determine which one of regulations or technical solutions are easier or more effective. To even make a good guess you need to be an expert in both domains, which is extremely rare especially in this case.
- lenerdenator 12d ago
  Technically, they do already kill people for profit. When some coked-out analyst in Manhattan projects what a company will be able to earn in profit in the next fiscal quarter, people listen to him and thus, the company must perform to that standard. Budgets are set accordingly. If you have a maintenance backlog at a company facility, and that backlog includes things likely to cause injury or death to workers or the general public, that backlog must be handled in such a way as to satisfy that projection. If that means that you don't spend money to replace a series of gauges that alert operators as to overflow of a dangerous chemical, or don't hire enough people so that the operators are too fatigued to do their jobs safely, that's what that means. The US CSB documents these as the cause of the 2005 BP Amoco Texas City disaster [0] If you don't deliver the quarterly numbers expected, investors get mad, and in our current system and regulatory regime, that's worse than people being killed. [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuJtdQOU_Z4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuJtdQOU_Z4
arborescence 12d ago
I agree tech response is important here but like the deterrent effect of criminal prohibition on murder probably does prevent at least some murders.
- afarah1 12d ago
  Just call it war and it's no longer criminal. Perhaps on terror, or whatever. If one is concerned with this sort of scenario, this talk about corporations and regulations is really short sighted.
gmerc 12d ago
Corporate Death Penalty absolutely would prevent future murders.
- parineum 12d ago
  Just like the actual death penalty does, right?
  - gmerc 11d ago
    Shoot Meta, meta harm gone, shareholders lose their pants.
tintor 12d ago
World is much more safer place now than in the entire history.
jay_kyburz 12d ago
Yes and you need to keep it simple too. AI should not have access to the internet. It would be nice and clear to put into law too. If you want to talk to it you walk up walk up to its keyboard and screen. If Anthropic and Open AI want to sell us AI's they can ship us a box that lives in our offices.
- dingaling911 11d ago
  I can only imagine a GPDR-type regulation with ridiculous fines for rogue agents. Black or white access will restrain creativity and potential.

saghm 12d ago

I feel like that's basically what they're trying to say; we should be using the legal system to punish them now to disincentivize us getting to the "machine swarm killing us all" stage.

holmesworcester 12d ago
I wonder if you could take an x-risk case to court and convince a judge and jury to award damages for harm that could have happened. Is there any precedent for this? My hunch is that it's impossible in the US at least but who knows?
- saghm 12d ago
  "Reckless endangerment" is a thing, but unfortunately I would expect trying to sue an AI company for it would be an uphill battle
  - timeinput 12d ago
    I expect they can bury you and your lawyers in made up paperwork to the point you'll go broke *long* before them, so why try?
- nitterclick 12d ago
  Courts do not award damages for things that didn't happen.
- sarchertech 12d ago
  If you can prove that there’s an imminent threat, you can get an injunction.

mike_bob 12d ago

And sadly regulations wont happen until 2029 at the earliest, and only if democrats win majorities. That's simply the truth.

holmesworcester 12d ago
Not necessarily. The Trump administration slapping export controls on Fable, and then setting up a pre-launch review process, is a kind of regulation. A fairly aggro and controversial one, even. If this administration actually becomes convinced that some imminent training run is likely to kill everyone, why wouldn't they act? The key is winning the debate that ASI is species-cide by default. We have to win it either way, because the 2028 US elections have little or nothing to do with what Xi does.
- kennywinker 12d ago
  Was that what that was about? Not punishing anthropic for denying them their killbots? Because it sure seemed like it was about punishing an entity that denied them something.
  - holmesworcester 12d ago
    I didn't like it at the time either. My sense following the news was that it was less arbitrary than it seemed at first, but I'm against restrictions on making existing models public in general. (It's clear now that they can do plenty of harm before they are made public.) But it's a proof point that regulation is possible, even over the objections of the companies.
    - kennywinker 12d ago
      > My sense following the news was that it was less arbitrary than it seemed at first What news have you seen that made it seem less like a retaliation?

lukewarm707 12d ago

we must as i have now said too many times, prosecute the individual researchers and executives in a criminal court. this is the only way to deter such activity. corporate fines are not enough. the charges are negligence, conspiracy and complicity.