351–360 of 367 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you could also use this to argue in the other way to say that they are using due care and therefore not negligent
Well, if you’re writing reports saying “we know our model only decides to commit felonies 0.001% of time which we judge to good enough to deploy” … I’m not sure that gets you off the hook the hook for the felonies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did a cursory search and it seems to be as regulated as restaurants are. There's an application process and on site inspections, but that's about it. The only thing notable is background checks.
And at least in the US if you're a hobbyist at home then there's ~no regulation whatsoever beyond the requirement to permanently affix a serial number and to keep accurate records.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, manufacturing guns is probably heavily regulated…
I did a cursory search and it seems to be as regulated as restaurants are. There's an application process and on site inspections, but that's about it. The only thing notable is background checks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And at least in the US if you're a hobbyist at home then there's ~no regulation whatsoever beyond the requirement to permanently affix a serial number and to keep accurate records.
I don’t think anyone is talking about homegrown LLMs, this is commercial products for sale.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would expect you can actually sell yourself as a slave. The contract won't be binding, since it's illegal and the people involved could be charged if caught. But you could. (IANAL YJMV TIEMFF)
That can is rendered entirely meaningless by the conditions in that statement. In the same sense you can also declare yourself king of the USA.
Becoming a slave can essentially physically make you a real slave and both parties of the contract can live the rest of their lives as a slave and a slave owner. It's only the ephemeral concept of law that doesn't happen.
They're essentially completely opposite scenarios.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That can is rendered entirely meaningless by the conditions in that statement. In the same sense you can also declare yourself king of the USA.
I see what you mean, but declaring yourself a king doesn't actually cause anything physical. It'll be make believe with no real consequences. Becoming a slave can essentially physically make you a real slave and both parties of the contract can live the rest of their lives as a slave and a slave owner. It's only the ephemeral concept of law that doesn't happen. They're essentially completely opposite scenarios.
For a closer example to the original consideration, assume a person that is abused by their spouse: There is a good reason why the abuse will be prosecuted regardless of that person's wishes if authorities are made aware of the abuse.
Let's say I am "User". I subscribe through a "Third Party" to use "AI Agent" allowing an "LLM" to run. I want to accomplish some legal non-nefarious task, and run the agent. The agentic loop causes a CFAA-violating behavior. Who gets prosecuted? 1. User 2. The third party model host with whom I have the account 3. The developer of the harness /agent software 4. The developer of the LLM model
1. Most laws are made about humans. If it's AI, it's often treated like a tool the human is using. So, change "I did this with AI" to "I did this with (other tool here)." The case law on those situations might give hints to what will happen.
2. Intent matters. Did you intend to do damage?
3. If a tool might cause damage, but you didn't prevent that, then someone might claim negligence. There's a lot of legal articles about torts for damages due to negligence. I personally believe a lot of agent use should be considered negligent. By default, I don't connect them to the Internet or my whole filesystem because I know they might do unforeseen damage.
Those are the three that come to mind most in such cases. You'd have to ask a lawyer. There's another risk of even using a lawyer, though.
For using AI agents, you must consider civil and criminal law because its problems are spread across them. Most lawyers in my area do one or the other. You might have to pay two retainers at $5,000-$8000 each or one, expensive firm with combined expertise. Just knowing your legal risk with agents might cost more than they'd make or save you vs just using human-driven AI's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your honor, my LLM spun the turbines real fast, as a practical joke!
It's not your intent to use a tool that can cause real world damage, to actually do such damage. It was your negligence in that case. A different legal concept than intent .