Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 66 posts

Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?

#41

Post by skinfaxi »

fluoridation wrote: post #38
class3shock wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if you told an embodied AI to do a home cleaning task knowing it's a possibility it will decide to pick up a gun and start spraying bullets, then society has an interest in holding you liable.

Is that the case, though? This is all pretty new tech. Did people know the machine was dangerous and didn't care, or did they not anticipate such a behavior?

It's artificial intelligence. If you treat something like a person and delegate to it, how can you later say you didn't trust it would execute your commands faithfully? And how wouldn't you be negligent in delegating a task to new, unproven tech?

Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?

#42

Post by cyphar »

godwinson__4-8 wrote: post #33
skinfaxi wrote: post #6

I don't get it. Why is breaking the law so hard to enforce when it is a company (i.e a person or group of people consenting to) running a computer program? If I take a gun and spray bullets around me I don't get to write it off as the gun being dangerous.

This is actually not hard to understand at all. Many web people got their start freelancing. You may know some. It is not uncommon to incorporate when doing that. The idea is if you fuck up their site somehow (or more likely - they claim you did) they can't try and go after your personal bank account or your car or your house. Only what is held by your company. You also get other benefits, like tax breaks for being s…

You're talking about limited liability companies, which is a legal structure relevant for civil claims.

Someone committing crimes "on behalf" of a company is not protected by the corporate veil and absolutely will get prosecuted individually (well, for small companies -- big companies get to play with different rules, which was the point GP was making).

Also the corporate veil is not absolute, it can get pierced in a few cases, and not everyone incorporates when they do contract work (in which case you need indemnity / private liability insurance).

Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?

#43

Post by godwinson__4-8 »

skinfaxi wrote: post #39
godwinson__4-8 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually not hard to understand at all. Many web people got their start freelancing. You may know some. It is not uncommon to incorporate when doing that. The idea is if you fuck up their site somehow (or more likely - they claim you did) they can't try and go after your personal bank account or your car or your house. Only what is held by your company. You also get other benefits, like tax breaks for being s…

> If you shot up a public area and then tried to claim that was a business activity, you would obviously not have an argument. It isn't plausible on its face. So I'm really not sure what point you're making. I'm running a terrorist training simulation and unwitting participants entered the area! Whoops! You haven't addressed the point of a company (composed of people) creating something that exceeds its bounds. Is a…

> I'm running a terrorist training simulation and unwitting participants entered the area! Whoops!

There is already precedent on more or less this exact scenario. Except you usually don't call people under your own jurisdiction "terrorists". That sort of term is reserved for people running those businesses in certain other places. By the way, it is an interesting feature of the American legal system that this sort of incident could spawn many proceedings, where a civil suit against the company in question could be one among many.

> Is a company liable if they are working on nuclear power and delete the city they are operating out of?

In theory, obviously. You still have to prove it in court.

> Why would a software company be treated differently when it causes harm to a third party?

They wouldn't. Again, you still have to prove it in court.

Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?

#44

Post by skinfaxi »

godwinson__4-8 wrote: post #43
skinfaxi wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you shot up a public area and then tried to claim that was a business activity, you would obviously not have an argument. It isn't plausible on its face. So I'm really not sure what point you're making. I'm running a terrorist training simulation and unwitting participants entered the area! Whoops! You haven't addressed the point of a company (composed of people) creating something that exceeds its bounds. Is a…

> I'm running a terrorist training simulation and unwitting participants entered the area! Whoops! There is already precedent on more or less this exact scenario. Except you usually don't call people under your own jurisdiction "terrorists". That sort of term is reserved for people running those businesses in certain other places. By the way, it is an interesting feature of the American legal system that this sort of…

What point are you making? This hasn't been brought to court yet and I am lamenting the fact that charges have not been brought.

> There is already precedent on more or less this exact scenario. Except you usually don't call people under your own jurisdiction "terrorists". That sort of term is reserved for people running those businesses in certain other places. By the way, it is an interesting feature of the American legal system that this sort of incident could spawn many proceedings, where a civil suit against the company in question could be one among many.

I don't have a jurisdiction as I am not the judiciary nor law enforcement. I'm really not sure what you're driving at.

Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?

#45

Post by godwinson__4-8 »

skinfaxi wrote: post #44
godwinson__4-8 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm running a terrorist training simulation and unwitting participants entered the area! Whoops! There is already precedent on more or less this exact scenario. Except you usually don't call people under your own jurisdiction "terrorists". That sort of term is reserved for people running those businesses in certain other places. By the way, it is an interesting feature of the American legal system that this sort of…

What point are you making? This hasn't been brought to court yet and I am lamenting the fact that charges have not been brought. > There is already precedent on more or less this exact scenario. Except you usually don't call people under your own jurisdiction "terrorists". That sort of term is reserved for people running those businesses in certain other places. By the way, it is an interesting feature of the America…

> I don't have a jurisdiction as I am not the judiciary nor law enforcement. I'm really not sure what you're driving at.

If you were shot or a member of your family got "deleted" and you had sufficient control of the estate, then you would have standing.

Obviously, if you aren't involved you shouldn't be able to sue and be compensated because something happened to someone else that doesn't relate to you at all.

Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?

#46

Post by skinfaxi »

arctic-true wrote: post #22
FeteCommuniste wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Ghost guns" exist, too, but we still try to prosecute reckless use of firearms to the extent possible.

Difference there is you need a physical body firing the ghost gun. There can be witnesses who saw a shooter, you can look at cameras to track their physical location, and if they discard the weapon they leave fingerprints.

Someone (or some group) made the thing. I can't just create a bomb and leave it alone and when it goes off blame the bomb.

Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?

#47

Post by skinfaxi »

sodapopcan wrote: post #11
FeteCommuniste wrote: post #5

> The hacks also present a challenge for legal systems. Hacking, when humans do it, is a crime. When an ai is the wrongdoer, though, it is unclear how to assign blame. Blame the prompter or person who assigned the task to the AI. It's their responsibility to use the tool in a safe way, just like it's a gun owner's duty not to fire their weapon carelessly into the air.

If that's how it was, most people would be too terrified to use, let alone pay for, software that boasts unpredictability as a main feature. I 100% agree with you, of course.

The unpredictability should be constrained though. Just like how you are never supposed to point a gun at someone/something you want to exist. Ever.

Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?

#48

Post by skinfaxi »

godwinson__4-8 wrote: post #45
skinfaxi wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What point are you making? This hasn't been brought to court yet and I am lamenting the fact that charges have not been brought. > There is already precedent on more or less this exact scenario. Except you usually don't call people under your own jurisdiction "terrorists". That sort of term is reserved for people running those businesses in certain other places. By the way, it is an interesting feature of the America…

> I don't have a jurisdiction as I am not the judiciary nor law enforcement. I'm really not sure what you're driving at. If you were shot or a member of your family got "deleted" and you had sufficient control of the estate, then you would have standing. Obviously, if you aren't involved you shouldn't be able to sue and be compensated because something happened to someone else that doesn't relate to you at all.

>If you were shot or a member of your family got "deleted" and you had sufficient control of the estate, then you would have standing.

> Obviously, if you aren't involved you shouldn't be able to sue and be compensated because something happened to someone else that doesn't relate to you at all.

Crimes don't require standing wtf are you on about? Prosecutors bring charges not individuals.

Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?

#49

Post by hackable_sand »

godwinson__4-8 wrote: post #43
skinfaxi wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you shot up a public area and then tried to claim that was a business activity, you would obviously not have an argument. It isn't plausible on its face. So I'm really not sure what point you're making. I'm running a terrorist training simulation and unwitting participants entered the area! Whoops! You haven't addressed the point of a company (composed of people) creating something that exceeds its bounds. Is a…

> I'm running a terrorist training simulation and unwitting participants entered the area! Whoops! There is already precedent on more or less this exact scenario. Except you usually don't call people under your own jurisdiction "terrorists". That sort of term is reserved for people running those businesses in certain other places. By the way, it is an interesting feature of the American legal system that this sort of…

I think they wanted an actual answer

Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?

#50

Post by gnopgnip »

godwinson__4-8 wrote: post #33
skinfaxi wrote: post #6

I don't get it. Why is breaking the law so hard to enforce when it is a company (i.e a person or group of people consenting to) running a computer program? If I take a gun and spray bullets around me I don't get to write it off as the gun being dangerous.

This is actually not hard to understand at all. Many web people got their start freelancing. You may know some. It is not uncommon to incorporate when doing that. The idea is if you fuck up their site somehow (or more likely - they claim you did) they can't try and go after your personal bank account or your car or your house. Only what is held by your company. You also get other benefits, like tax breaks for being s…

> It is not uncommon to incorporate when doing that. The idea is if you fuck up their site somehow (or more likely - they claim you did) they can't try and go after your personal bank account or your car or your house. Only what is held by your company.

This is a common misconception. A corporation doesn’t protect you from personal liability. If you intentionally or negligently damage someone’s property they can sue you personally. In many cases they can sue both, and it’s easier to collect from an established business, but that doesn’t do you any good as a freelancer.

Nuisance lawsuits aren’t much of an issue because insurance covers the legal defense and indemnifies you

Post reply on HN