5 ms·
Non-human-owned corporations are insulated from criminal legal consequences, and therefore are better able to engage in activity that would otherwise engender c
by darawk 9y ago
Non-human-owned corporations are insulated from criminal legal consequences, and therefore are better able to engage in activity that would otherwise engender criminal prosecution, relative to a human.
- sharemywin 9y agoIf you took away it's money how would it exist.
- btilly 9y agoIt wouldn't. But for the person who created the entity, losing the company is a better outcome than going to jail.
- guntars 9y agoPretty sure we already have laws to put authors of malicious software in jail.
- dublinben 9y agoWhat if the software wrote itself? How do you put software in jail?
- leetcrew 9y agothis is a fun paradox to entertain, but irl we would probably just trace the "stack" back to the human who wrote the program that started the chain of program-writing programs and hold them liable (unless we can show intent, then charge them criminally). if you can't trace back far enough to find a human then I guess you just throw up your hands and give up, which is more or less what we do anyway when we can't attribute a malicious program to a specific person. so altogether not as novel as it seems.
- pishpash 9y agoWhat if the programs were randomly generated and selected for certain traits by the crowd of non-owners at large? Who is responsible?
- fmblwntr 9y agowhat if i set a machine to fire a gun randomly and select it for the trait of hitting people? who is responsible?
- pishpash 9y agoWrong analogy. I set up a blank slate. Random people on the internet start to mould it into a gun that fires on people incrementally, each step fairly innocuous. Who is responsible?
- leetcrew 9y ago"who is responsible?" is a philosophical question that probably has no objective answer. "who would be held responsible?" is still pretty easy here. by default, if you own or release to the public a system that ends up hurting someone, you are liable. it doesn't matter what your intent was or whether there was any way of knowing that the bad outcome would happen. the only way you can get around this is with "safe harbor" exemptions. it's possible that your blank slate would qualify, although you would probably have to lobby for this before the fact. in that case, no one would be held responsible. otherwise, you would be paying.
- saltcured 9y agoThe community has a garbage tip. Due to an abundance of uraniaum, everyone starts discarding it. When the garbage tip reaches critical mass and kills everyone, who was to blame?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- bdamm 9y agoIt has no fear of anything physical or social such as jail, public humiliation, police brutality, poor health. Fear itself is irrelevant, including fear of dissolution. The entity can operate as per its primary goals without concern as to the ultimate success of the goals, whether that is siphoning money to a hidden account, disrupting government services by denial of service, spawning copycat organizations to thwart law enforcement, etc.
- louisswiss 9y agoSome of those attributes sound like they could be more of a hinderance than a help (in the pursuit of successful illicit activity, I mean)
- politician 9y agoThis all already exists in the form of large, sometimes multinational, organizations. Has anyone from Well's Fargo been criminally prosecuted from the massive identity fraud they conducted by opening accounts falsely? From Equifax? We don't need AIs to achieve this level of self-directed autonomy free to engage in criminal behavior without consequences: we already have Employee Handbooks.
- megy 9y ago> Has anyone from Well's Fargo been criminally prosecuted from the massive identity fraud they conducted by opening accounts falsely? Is that illegal though? I mean, I can create an account for you on my web platform, and everyone else.
- danans 9y agoIf in doing so you charge me for services I didn't request, then yes, it's fraud. And that's what WF did: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_Fargo_account_fraud_scandal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_Fargo_account_fraud_sc...
- ars 9y agoAnd who exactly would implement the algorithm? That person has much to fear.
- frisco 9y agoIf you couldn't get its private keys, how would you take away its money?
- pishpash 9y agoIt might have money but it wouldn't be an LLC. It would just be a virus like WannaCry.
- ateesdalejr 9y agoThe government? Or the creator? If it were the creator I'm sure that the creator would have the common sense to pregenerate and store the private keys somewhere safe.
- ryandrake 9y agoWhat if you couldn’t? Imagine an AI running in the cloud, self replicating, totally free of human input, no physical presence anywhere, with sole access to a bitcoin wallet from which it pays expenses and to which it receives revenue. No assets that are seize-able. No goals other than to collect more and more profit. How do you stop it from operating?
- s73v3r_ 9y agoDisconnect the servers it's running on.
- ryandrake 9y agoIt thought about this before you and is currently running on hundreds of thousands of zombie home computers unknowingly infected with malware.
- matte_black 9y agoMake it a deal it can't refuse.
- s73v3r_ 9y agoThen you distribute the Antivirus patches.
- aninhumer 9y agoSeize all its physical assets and make it illegal to trade with. Bitcoin is arguably impossible to control, but real world assets not so much. Property rights as they currently exist are ultimately enforced by state violence. A number in a blockchain only has meaning if those who enforce physical property rights allow it to. And if the AI manages to actually assert control of property on its own, it is no longer a market actor, it is a revolutionary army.
- q4w56 9y agoOn the otherhand nonhumans are not protected by law, so government can kill it at will.
- npongratz 9y agoBut perhaps they would not kill it if it were deemed too big or important to fail. Doesn't preclude others from attempting to kill it, of course.