382
Top AI Researchers Terrified of a “Chernobyl Moment”: a Mass Casualty Event, or Worse, That Turns the World Against AI Forever (tech.yahoo.com)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
196 comments fedilink hide all child comments
🤞 4
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 4 months ago (7 children)

You really don't think there could be a possibility of a horrific consequence if AI is given the responsibility of managing real world systems?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 25 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Of course that's a possibility, but AI does not have responsibility. The question is who does?

    Do I blame a train for hitting someone who steps onto railroad tracks when there's a train approaching? It's a machine. It doesn't have responsibilities or opinions or agency. It does what it has been built to do, in exactly the manner that anyone with sufficient understanding of its operating principles could tell you, because that's what machines do. The person or persons interacting with the machine is not absolved of any responsibility by how complex or inscrutable the machine is. It's still a machine.

    The question is, who is responsible for the person stepping onto the railroad tracks when there was a train approaching? Was the person trying to end their own life? Maybe it's their responsibility. Or maybe the crossing signals failed and told them it was safe, and they did not realize a train was approaching. Maybe there were too many trees or signs or construction that was blocking their view. Is the train company responsible for that? Maybe. Did the brakes fail due to poor inspections or substandard work during the last maintenance? Maybe. Did the train have plenty of time to stop and the engineer was not paying attention? Maybe. These are all people, and groups of people, who may have responsibility. The only thing that's certain is: The train doesn't.

    We, as a society, need to decide who is responsible for the possibility of a horrific consequence arising from the use of these sort of machines. Is it the person using the machine? The people who made the machine in the first place? The people who put it in a place where this person could easily use it? By assigning responsibility, ideally in advance of any horrific consequences, that provides a clear incentive for the people we deem responsible to actually start acting responsible and take the appropriate measures to avoid such horrific consequences that they might be held responsible for.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Is there any case where this is currently unclear? Which part needs to be debated?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    Morally I think it's reasonably clear in many (not all) cases, but it can become complicated. Who is responsible when the inherently ineffective safety guardrails fail? What about someone who intentionally uses a bypass technique to jailbreak and escape the guardrails? Who is responsible for an open weights model that had some of the guardrails removed or rendered even more ineffective either intentionally or by accident?

    Legally, it is an entirely different story, and it is absolutely and entirely unclear. Several cases are already before the courts and I don't think we'll know where any of them end up within this decade, and even if they do receive some token legal judgement against them eventually, that just sets the stage for those legal responsibilities to be overturned by new legislation. These are companies that are positioning themselves as bulwarks in the new frontier of economic warfare, information warfare and physical warfare, they are critical national security and geopolitical assets, they have infiltrated governments at all levels and are receiving direct protection from same.

    Do you believe they will ever be truly held accountable for the damage they've already done to society, much less the damage they will do over time? That's part of responsibility, and it needs to be debated because that's the only way to even start to hold them accountable for anything. We need to hold them accountable with words first if we want to have any hope of holding them accountable in any other way. And these are my words to help start doing that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    The interesting aspect is that AI companies are huge, too big to fail as they say, so the courts historically have tended to pin responsibility downstream from those whales more on the users of their products. The question in today's environment is: will victims of AI abuse be blamed, like jaywalkers, or will the blame fall further upstream on the AI operators who are profiting from its use, thereby exposing their profits to assignment as damages to the injured.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    Giving AI responsibility is like giving a chainsaw responsibility for the trees it cuts and where they fall.

    Anybody using AI then turning around and pointing at it saying "it wasn't me, it was the tool!!!" is just as culpable as someone who sets their car on cruise control at 80 miles per hour and proceeds to take a nap.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent