EVHaste
I would like to see a law which makes companies responsible for any errors their AI makes. Since their key appeal is for passing accountability to a black hole, I think it ought to transfer to them instead.
If they had to manage that risk I think we would see more responsible use.
🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
@Haste Wouldnt they already be held accountable for that? If a companies software makes an error they are accountable to it.
Paul Cantrell
@adamshostack @Haste IANAL, but new law or new precedent, I don’t think this is a legally settled question.
Honestly I don’t think it’s a legally settled precedent that companies are sure to be accountable for their errors even when AI •isn’t• involved.
Adam Shostack :donor: :rebelverified:
@Haste @inthehands We don’t need a new law. There’s no reason to think “the devil made me do it” is a defense.
Paul Cantrell
@null_hypothesis @adamshostack @Haste One thing I understand in my non-lawyer ignorance: the law is whatever the process of the legal system has decided it is.
It is •not• what what the literal words of the law say, or what makes obvious sense, or what would be best, or what we want, or what legislators intended, or or or…. You can’t argue or analyze your way to understanding it.
There’s only way to know what the law actually is, and that’s to study law.
Adam Shostack :donor: :rebelverified:
@inthehands @Haste IANALE, but if you're relying on a tool that says "Hey, this thing is full of errors" maybe that's a sign that you should be.
Of course, fancy lawyers will make a case that it's unsettled law
Null Hypothesis
@adamshostack @inthehands @Haste
I don’t believe legal expertise is required. Simply physics.
Axioms:
a) Computers
b) Code (defines computer actions)
c) People (write code, write selection of code)
It is a linear history of people getting a tool and deciding to use, or not that tool.
If I choose to toss hammers or other tools out of my 5th floor window, and a person below is hurt, the responsibility is with me, not the apt bldg., not the hammer.
Looks like the case argues itself. (?)
EVHaste
@null_hypothesis @adamshostack @inthehands
I wish I that we could count on that outcome. That’s the way it *should* work, but our legal system is not always rational. See: qualified immunity, inability to discharge student loan debt, whether I can get my own hormones. Common sense says these models are themselves copyright infringing, yet…?
I’m not mad, but I am a little exhausted from my DM’s filling with folks confidently telling me no law is necessary.
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.