▲ 366 ▼ AI agents aren’t legally responsible for any harm that they cause, experts say. So who is? (www.theguardian.com) submitted 2 months ago by sanitation@lemmy.today to c/technology@lemmy.world 106 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] fubarx@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (7 children) In that case, society's to blame. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 10 points 2 months ago (6 children) Really? I'm inclined to blame that on the manufacturer. If 'AI' guardrails fail that spectacularly, it's on the provider. I fail to see any way to blame society, other than perhaps not voting in more sanity, but that's pretty indirect. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] fubarx@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (1 child) Sigh. I really need to put /s around things. It's a Monty Python quote. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 months ago Fair cop, probably should have got it. But rather out of context here without ascribing it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SparroHawc@piefed.world 4 points 2 months ago* As the person who deployed the agent, you are responsible for what it does on your behalf. You stand to gain from its actions, you also stand to lose from its bad behavior. Of course, if the company that provided you the agent knowingly misrepresented the product, you can seek damages for what the agent did - but that's up to you (and good luck getting damages from trillion-dollar tech companies and their armies of lawyers). permalink fedilink source parent [–] NihilsineNefas@slrpnk.net 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) How do you guardrail the machine that is programmed to literally make things up and/or tell you you're doing a great job while it does it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 months ago (1 child) IMO you likely can't, certainly hasn't even gotten close yet. Bodes badly for alignment of anything more general. Kind of makes it irresponsible to advocate (and sell) using it on anything important, no? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NihilsineNefas@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 months ago It's 100% irresponsible. Especially given how many of then are going rogue. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 10 points 2 months ago (6 children) Really? I'm inclined to blame that on the manufacturer. If 'AI' guardrails fail that spectacularly, it's on the provider. I fail to see any way to blame society, other than perhaps not voting in more sanity, but that's pretty indirect. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] fubarx@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (1 child) Sigh. I really need to put /s around things. It's a Monty Python quote. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 months ago Fair cop, probably should have got it. But rather out of context here without ascribing it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SparroHawc@piefed.world 4 points 2 months ago* As the person who deployed the agent, you are responsible for what it does on your behalf. You stand to gain from its actions, you also stand to lose from its bad behavior. Of course, if the company that provided you the agent knowingly misrepresented the product, you can seek damages for what the agent did - but that's up to you (and good luck getting damages from trillion-dollar tech companies and their armies of lawyers). permalink fedilink source parent [–] NihilsineNefas@slrpnk.net 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) How do you guardrail the machine that is programmed to literally make things up and/or tell you you're doing a great job while it does it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 months ago (1 child) IMO you likely can't, certainly hasn't even gotten close yet. Bodes badly for alignment of anything more general. Kind of makes it irresponsible to advocate (and sell) using it on anything important, no? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NihilsineNefas@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 months ago It's 100% irresponsible. Especially given how many of then are going rogue. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fubarx@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (1 child) Sigh. I really need to put /s around things. It's a Monty Python quote. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 months ago Fair cop, probably should have got it. But rather out of context here without ascribing it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 months ago Fair cop, probably should have got it. But rather out of context here without ascribing it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SparroHawc@piefed.world 4 points 2 months ago* As the person who deployed the agent, you are responsible for what it does on your behalf. You stand to gain from its actions, you also stand to lose from its bad behavior. Of course, if the company that provided you the agent knowingly misrepresented the product, you can seek damages for what the agent did - but that's up to you (and good luck getting damages from trillion-dollar tech companies and their armies of lawyers). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NihilsineNefas@slrpnk.net 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) How do you guardrail the machine that is programmed to literally make things up and/or tell you you're doing a great job while it does it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 months ago (1 child) IMO you likely can't, certainly hasn't even gotten close yet. Bodes badly for alignment of anything more general. Kind of makes it irresponsible to advocate (and sell) using it on anything important, no? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NihilsineNefas@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 months ago It's 100% irresponsible. Especially given how many of then are going rogue. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 months ago (1 child) IMO you likely can't, certainly hasn't even gotten close yet. Bodes badly for alignment of anything more general. Kind of makes it irresponsible to advocate (and sell) using it on anything important, no? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NihilsineNefas@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 months ago It's 100% irresponsible. Especially given how many of then are going rogue. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NihilsineNefas@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 months ago It's 100% irresponsible. Especially given how many of then are going rogue. permalink fedilink source parent