Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?
51–60 of 66 posts
Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Simply wrong. In criminal cases, the government may not elect to bring charges for all sorts of reasons. The civil courts will still be available to you. That will be true whether there are charges or not. Whether that results in a conviction or not.
The government can also initiate a civil suit. Criminal charges against businesses are rare. I'm not sure any would apply here. Perhaps you'd like to volunteer a statute?
Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
> Prosecutors bring charges even if the estate doesn't pursue. Simply wrong. In criminal cases, the government may not elect to bring charges for all sorts of reasons. The civil courts will still be available to you. That will be true whether there are charges or not. Whether that results in a conviction or not. The government can also initiate a civil suit. Criminal charges against businesses are rare. I'm not sure…
> Simply wrong.
You didn't refute my point :P
Wait so I only need to make a company and use AI to hack US banks and anyone else I want?
Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Because that's how technology goes from being new to being understood. People try it, see what it can do, what it's good for, and in what ways it's dangerous, if any.
If companies are spending so many resources on "alignment" can they argue that they didn't know the risks of their research?
Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?
#55Earlier 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…
> 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…
Yes, there are also other ways to pierce the corporate veil. In the vast majority of cases, they do not apply or would not be provable. Bringing up exceptions to the rule doesn't mean the rule is misconceived. As most devs know, sites can get fucked up for all sorts of reasons. A client relationship may deteriorate to the point they may think you are negligent. The chances of a court agreeing to pass liability through to you personally on that basis are likely 0. As such, incorporating itself still offers protection.
Just like if a CEO shoots someone while on the clock and tried to say it was a business activity, and got personally indicted, doesn't therefore mean incorporation was a waste of time. Essentially the theory behind piercing the veil is that some aspect of the alleged conduct was not a legitimate business activity. Such as fraud.
> Nuisance lawsuits aren’t much of an issue because insurance covers the legal defense and indemnifies you.
There is that too. Although if you are running a small software business this step is often not worth it.
Yes, anyone can make outlandish claims. It doesn't mean incorporation as a personal liability shield is not highly valuable and well established.
Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Prosecutors bring charges even if the estate doesn't pursue. Simply wrong. In criminal cases, the government may not elect to bring charges for all sorts of reasons. The civil courts will still be available to you. That will be true whether there are charges or not. Whether that results in a conviction or not. The government can also initiate a civil suit. Criminal charges against businesses are rare. I'm not sure…
> Prosecutors bring charges even if the estate doesn't pursue. > Simply wrong. You didn't refute my point :P Wait so I only need to make a company and use AI to hack US banks and anyone else I want?
You may want to read this first: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-fraud/l...
If you actually want an answer, that might be a good starting point.
Or did you just want a cheap answer? Sam Altman paid off the president!!
Are you happier now? Hope so. I don't blame you. I guess it's a bad time to be on the rule of law side when overt corruption exists. Then again, as mentioned, if the other parties affected actually wanted to, they could sue. Afaik they haven't done so. Seems unlikely even in "normal" times a criminal case would happen under these circumstances.
I get that you are upset. But the rule of law should be respected. Even if we have to tolerate prosecutors handling cases differently than we would like.
Have a nice day!
Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because that's how technology goes from being new to being understood. People try it, see what it can do, what it's good for, and in what ways it's dangerous, if any.
So if I make a new object that can kill you, I can try it, see what it can do, etc without liability? We already have computer programs that inflict damage on computers. Is AI new in that regard? If companies are spending so many resources on "alignment" can they argue that they didn't know the risks of their research?
Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?
#58Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals? No, AI companies should be treated like any other company. If their product is causing damages or loss of life it should be handled just like any other company that has a malfunctioning product that is causing damages or loss of life. If one day androids using AI go rogue the military can get things under control and the company can be taken offline unti…
Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?
#59I 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.
Re: Should AI labs be treated like the owners of dangerous animals?
#60"The law in America relies on intentionality, notes Rune Kvist, head of Artificial Intelligence Underwriting Company, which insures AI firms. If no human intended to hack anyone, no crime can have happened. The ability to sue for damages is limited too." This is sloppy. Criminal negligence exists (although some crimes do require intent). And civil tort certainly doesn't require intent.
I never understood why would these labs disclose such crimes, because hacking is a federal crime, and admit some sort of fault in public which would be used as evidence in a court of law against them, unless it's all bullishit and a publicity stunt...