4 ms·

>and told someone else to type that word in, we would both be culpable. Perhaps as some technicality but in reality who is (much) more culpable? Who would thin

>and told someone else to type that word in, we would both be culpable. Perhaps as some technicality but in reality who is (much) more culpable? Who would think a computer would be made so poorly that it fails dangerously if the wrong word is typed in? One could say they didn't believe it would be true because it sounds too implausible. Same with a car that drives off the road if it sees the wrong thing on a t-shirt. I don't think it's fine for a company to just make products that are super dangerous if some slight edge case is met. In my opinion they would be liable. Otherwise terrorism can be legal if you slap an "AI" label on it.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
>Perhaps as some technicality but in reality who is (much) more culpable? The person who both knew that the computer was dangerous and directly caused someone to perform that dangerous act. Without them, it's possible no one gets injured. >I don't think it's fine for a company to just make products that are super dangerous if some slight edge case is met. As I keep telling you, neither do I. I really don't understand your point of view. Of course companies shouldn't make unsafe products, but just because an unsafe product exists doesn't justify someone using that product to hurt someone. Just because the danger sounds implausible doesn't forgive the situation. It sounds implausible that touching a bit of metal would kill someone but if I made you touch a live wire I'd be at fault.
- brokenmachine 5y ago
  My point of view is that I support people's right to wear any shirt they want. I don't think if people want to wear any shirt, even one specifically designed to fool garbage AI, that it is their fault that a car suddenly decides to kill people. If you want to sell a car it must be smart and safe enough to ignore any T-Shirt, poster or painting in it's vicinity, just like my old, non-garbage non-AI car. If you can't do that, then you can't sell cars without being sued into oblivion. And that's the way it should be. Messing with street signs is already illegal. But wearing a shirt, no matter what it has on it, is not.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

boomboomsubban 5y ago

>Perhaps as some technicality but in reality who is (much) more culpable? The person who both knew that the computer was dangerous and directly caused someone to perform that dangerous act. Without them, it's possible no one gets injured. >I don't think it's fine for a company to just make products that are super dangerous if some slight edge case is met. As I keep telling you, neither do I. I really don't understand your point of view. Of course companies shouldn't make unsafe products, but just because an unsafe product exists doesn't justify someone using that product to hurt someone. Just because the danger sounds implausible doesn't forgive the situation. It sounds implausible that touching a bit of metal would kill someone but if I made you touch a live wire I'd be at fault.

brokenmachine 5y ago
My point of view is that I support people's right to wear any shirt they want. I don't think if people want to wear any shirt, even one specifically designed to fool garbage AI, that it is their fault that a car suddenly decides to kill people. If you want to sell a car it must be smart and safe enough to ignore any T-Shirt, poster or painting in it's vicinity, just like my old, non-garbage non-AI car. If you can't do that, then you can't sell cars without being sued into oblivion. And that's the way it should be. Messing with street signs is already illegal. But wearing a shirt, no matter what it has on it, is not.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]