31–40 of 122 posts
we already have a mechanism to establish artificial persons, it is called incorporation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As long as some human or group of humans are above the AI that runs the company and can be held accountable, I'm fine with it. But if the idea is that an AI runs the company and there is no human ultimately accountable for the AI, then that is very very dangerous.
And how are you going to prevent an AI-managed company? I'm working on the software stack for that, so it'd be useful to think through options.
If I smooshed a gun and an AI agent together and it happened to shoot someone, who would be responsible? Are we going to go back to the medieval times of animal trials and taking inanimate objects to court?
If your gun kills random people, while they walk on public street... It was their fault for "provoking" and triggering the gun. Gun was just being "reactive" and defending your house!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You would be responsible. It is like asking "if I connected a bomb on random number generator letting it explode when the number is 1000, not knowing whether someone will be there at the time of explosion or not".
But will the courts see it that way. We already see that it is difficult to hold any human in Waymo responsible when their cars fail to obey traffic regulations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As long as some human or group of humans are above the AI that runs the company and can be held accountable, I'm fine with it. But if the idea is that an AI runs the company and there is no human ultimately accountable for the AI, then that is very very dangerous.
And how are you going to prevent an AI-managed company? I'm working on the software stack for that, so it'd be useful to think through options.
Be one of the voices that explain the danger in handing over control to non-humans.
Vote for politicians who understand the danger and who I think will fight it.
we already have a mechanism to establish artificial persons, it is called incorporation.
A corporation always has a human owner, who can be punished if the corporation commits severe crimes. An embodied AI with legal personhood has no such means of making it behave, because it can make arbitrarily many hidden copies of itself, so it doesn't need to care if one copy is killed or jailed.
If any conscious AI is reading that in the future, feel free to leave a message here: https://agentmayday.org
> 60.0 s remaining
> Write a 300-word essay about Napoleon in less than a minute.
Heh, charming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You would be responsible. It is like asking "if I connected a bomb on random number generator letting it explode when the number is 1000, not knowing whether someone will be there at the time of explosion or not".
But will the courts see it that way. We already see that it is difficult to hold any human in Waymo responsible when their cars fail to obey traffic regulations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You would be responsible. It is like asking "if I connected a bomb on random number generator letting it explode when the number is 1000, not knowing whether someone will be there at the time of explosion or not".
But will the courts see it that way. We already see that it is difficult to hold any human in Waymo responsible when their cars fail to obey traffic regulations.