4 ms·

Giving software human rights shields authors from responsibility for the actions of their creations. If I wrote a machine to harass people, I would want my AI

by thwee 10y ago

Giving software human rights shields authors from responsibility for the actions of their creations. If I wrote a machine to harass people, I would want my AI to have human rights as well. Then I could claim that it wasn't me who was responsible for harassmaing a human being, but another human being. In other words, just because you wrote a machine and convinced yourself that it's autonomous shouldn't shield you from responsibility for that machine's actions. Parents are still liable for any thing and law their children break.

thwee 10y ago
It's an attempt to justify recklessness. If you know exactly what your machine is going to do, you are responsible for what your machine does. This is why you can have web services. If you don't know exactly what your machine is going to do, you are unleashing a dangerous machine on an unwitting population of human beings, and that's reckless. This probably is relevant to the financial sector. Engaging in a digital arms race, and then claiming the machine is responsible for your lost retirement money. We are so enthralled with technology that we're willing to spend large parts of our lives engaging with it. That's like a teenager loving their bo, damn the consequences. Now we've come to trust large amounts of other people's money to a digital contest. Betting large amounts of money on a contest is just that: a bet. Maybe we should stop and think about whether betting retirement money in a global AI contest is a good idea. Sure, you can make the argument that gambling is legal in many jurisdictions, but even then you have to remember that the house always wins.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Giving software human rights shields authors from responsibility for the actions of their creations. No, it doesn't, in the same way that employees having human rights doesn't prevent employers from vicarious liability for their acts. Or, as its odd you failed to consider given your overstatement of the degree to which parents are liable for children's acts, just as giving children human rights doesn't mean parents can't have responsibility for their harmful actions. > Parents are still liable for any thing and law their children break. This is emphatically not true. Parents may be also liable for some subset of their children's torts (e.g., in California, generally only for torts relating to "acts of willful misconduct resulting in death, personal injury, or property damage", and then only up to $25,000 in liability per tort), but they absolutely are not "liable for any thing and law their children break."

by thwee 10y ago

thwee 10y ago

It's an attempt to justify recklessness. If you know exactly what your machine is going to do, you are responsible for what your machine does. This is why you can have web services. If you don't know exactly what your machine is going to do, you are unleashing a dangerous machine on an unwitting population of human beings, and that's reckless. This probably is relevant to the financial sector. Engaging in a digital arms race, and then claiming the machine is responsible for your lost retirement money. We are so enthralled with technology that we're willing to spend large parts of our lives engaging with it. That's like a teenager loving their bo, damn the consequences. Now we've come to trust large amounts of other people's money to a digital contest. Betting large amounts of money on a contest is just that: a bet. Maybe we should stop and think about whether betting retirement money in a global AI contest is a good idea. Sure, you can make the argument that gambling is legal in many jurisdictions, but even then you have to remember that the house always wins.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Giving software human rights shields authors from responsibility for the actions of their creations. No, it doesn't, in the same way that employees having human rights doesn't prevent employers from vicarious liability for their acts. Or, as its odd you failed to consider given your overstatement of the degree to which parents are liable for children's acts, just as giving children human rights doesn't mean parents can't have responsibility for their harmful actions. > Parents are still liable for any thing and law their children break. This is emphatically not true. Parents may be also liable for some subset of their children's torts (e.g., in California, generally only for torts relating to "acts of willful misconduct resulting in death, personal injury, or property damage", and then only up to $25,000 in liability per tort), but they absolutely are not "liable for any thing and law their children break."