4 ms·
But why should humans carry liability? Why not have a company (e.g. a self-driving car company) hold all the liability.
by CamelCaseName 4y ago
But why should humans carry liability? Why not have a company (e.g. a self-driving car company) hold all the liability.
- lordnacho 4y agoThing I didn't mention is aligned incentives. "Pilot also wants to arrive safely so he can see his family."
- ljlolel 4y agotrue for pilots but not true for your other examples: "officials, accountants, lawyers"
- lordnacho 4y agoBut we've constructed other incentives for those people, like being allowed to keep your certification. What you say makes sense though, you should believe the pilot is in the same boat as you. Your lawyer... well there's a reason jokes about lawyers focus on why they screw over everyone else.
- protomolecule 4y agoUnless he doesn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525
- arroz 4y agoCongrats on finding a corner case
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- tel 4y agoSome forms of liability only scale with the ability of the justice system to mete out suitable punishment. Murder is disincentivized because the punishment is, essentially, losing your freedom and sovereignty entirely. This plays both a role individually and socially. It's important to the individual's calculus to understand what is at stake and it's importance to them. It's also important socially for people to feel safe that punishment is commensurate and sufficient. This doesn't seem to be the sort of thing that scales to companies or AI. It's not clear to me what the analogue would be, it's not clear that these analogues would serve the important social purposes they must, and it's not clear that the justice system has the power or capability to deliver these punishments. Today's society is, in large part, based on the ability for society/governments to enact brutal violence on bad actors at a scale commensurate, in the worst cases, with their entire being.