6 ms·

Whenever an organization does something, someone or something has liability. If you don't go through the process to create an LLC, that someone is the members o

Whenever an organization does something, someone or something has liability. If you don't go through the process to create an LLC, that someone is the members of the organization. Liability doesn't go away just because you organize via a blockchain.

tiku 4y ago
If the actions are done by code or an AI, who is liable?
- yifanl 4y ago
  Whoever made the decision was it to implement them as an actor, most likely?
  - majormajor 4y ago
    Yeah, booby traps are the first example I can think of illegal automation that comes to mind where the property owner is liable. Setting up something and not pulling the trigger yourself doesn't absolve you.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > Whoever made the decision was it to implement them as an actor, most likely? Directly, the holders of the DAO tokens. That’s what this case is about. Those holders may have further claims against the people who implemented the code or AI. But the liability begins with the general partners, i.e. holders of the governance tokens. Will be interesting to see the first judgements enforced against holders of a DAO.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- vkou 4y ago
  The people who own it. Which, in this case, are the bag-holders. Looks like there are benefits to having a real corporation, instead of trying to re-invent corporate governance from scratch, without any input from the courts...
- pjc50 4y ago
  The last people with intent who touched it, usually, which may mean the developers. Certainly that's what happened to the TornadoCash developers. You can't just wind up a toy with a bomb strapped to it, walk away, and disclaim the consequences; nor can you do that with code.
  - Teever 4y ago
    What if we can't tell who the last person was? Do we just go down the line until we find someone to blame? What if that person didn't add any of the menacing features of the code? What if the last 'person' was gpt4? is openai responsible?
    - ARandumGuy 4y ago
      The person responsible will be whoever the courts think is responsible. Courts use case law and judicial precedent to determine responsibility for a wide variety of complicated legal situations. Things do get murky when there isn't a lot of existing precedent. That's why it's risky to engage in activities that are, let's just say "legally innovative."
    - wildzzz 4y ago
      If they can't find the person solely responsible for something, then they got away. If you make an AI that is hooked up to the internet and it does something criminal, you'd be liable. You can't just let your pitbull roam the streets and not be held liable when it bites someone.
      - Teever 4y ago
        What if I release the AI onto the internet, and then tragically die in a car accident? Who is responsible for the AI? What happens when the AI spawns more AI, who is responsible for that?
        notch898a 4y ago
        Yeah this reminds me of a thought experiment with Ethereum virtual machines. If someone writes and produces the code for tornado cash, publishes it on the internet as free speech but never deploys it obviously they are not at fault. So lets say they publish it and some anonymous person from Somalia publishes it to the Ethereum network and the nodes absorb the program. When then is responsible for the tornado cash instance? The Ethereum VM node operators who have no idea they're even running it? An unknowable person from Somalia?
- olliej 4y ago
  The owners. For example: Imagine I have a cow, and the cow escapes and goes on a rampage. I didn't make the cow escape, I didn't tell it to go on a rampage, and cows think for themselves so are autonomous. That doesn't mean I get to claim the cow is liable for the damage.
lacy_tinpot 4y ago
The entire purpose of an LLC is to limit personal exposure to such liabilities. I don't see how this won't just extend to something like DAOs.
- 8note 4y ago
  I could see legal changes to bring in limited liability to DAOs, but I don't think DAO users will like the rest of what that entails, eg reporting and kyc requirements. Thsoe will likely make daos more useful, but less differentiated from existing structures

tiku 4y ago

If the actions are done by code or an AI, who is liable?

yifanl 4y ago
Whoever made the decision was it to implement them as an actor, most likely?
- majormajor 4y ago
  Yeah, booby traps are the first example I can think of illegal automation that comes to mind where the property owner is liable. Setting up something and not pulling the trigger yourself doesn't absolve you.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > Whoever made the decision was it to implement them as an actor, most likely? Directly, the holders of the DAO tokens. That’s what this case is about. Those holders may have further claims against the people who implemented the code or AI. But the liability begins with the general partners, i.e. holders of the governance tokens. Will be interesting to see the first judgements enforced against holders of a DAO.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
vkou 4y ago
The people who own it. Which, in this case, are the bag-holders. Looks like there are benefits to having a real corporation, instead of trying to re-invent corporate governance from scratch, without any input from the courts...
pjc50 4y ago
The last people with intent who touched it, usually, which may mean the developers. Certainly that's what happened to the TornadoCash developers. You can't just wind up a toy with a bomb strapped to it, walk away, and disclaim the consequences; nor can you do that with code.
- Teever 4y ago
  What if we can't tell who the last person was? Do we just go down the line until we find someone to blame? What if that person didn't add any of the menacing features of the code? What if the last 'person' was gpt4? is openai responsible?
  - ARandumGuy 4y ago
    The person responsible will be whoever the courts think is responsible. Courts use case law and judicial precedent to determine responsibility for a wide variety of complicated legal situations. Things do get murky when there isn't a lot of existing precedent. That's why it's risky to engage in activities that are, let's just say "legally innovative."
  - wildzzz 4y ago
    If they can't find the person solely responsible for something, then they got away. If you make an AI that is hooked up to the internet and it does something criminal, you'd be liable. You can't just let your pitbull roam the streets and not be held liable when it bites someone.
    - Teever 4y ago
      What if I release the AI onto the internet, and then tragically die in a car accident? Who is responsible for the AI? What happens when the AI spawns more AI, who is responsible for that?
      - notch898a 4y ago
        Yeah this reminds me of a thought experiment with Ethereum virtual machines. If someone writes and produces the code for tornado cash, publishes it on the internet as free speech but never deploys it obviously they are not at fault. So lets say they publish it and some anonymous person from Somalia publishes it to the Ethereum network and the nodes absorb the program. When then is responsible for the tornado cash instance? The Ethereum VM node operators who have no idea they're even running it? An unknowable person from Somalia?
olliej 4y ago
The owners. For example: Imagine I have a cow, and the cow escapes and goes on a rampage. I didn't make the cow escape, I didn't tell it to go on a rampage, and cows think for themselves so are autonomous. That doesn't mean I get to claim the cow is liable for the damage.

lacy_tinpot 4y ago

The entire purpose of an LLC is to limit personal exposure to such liabilities. I don't see how this won't just extend to something like DAOs.

8note 4y ago
I could see legal changes to bring in limited liability to DAOs, but I don't think DAO users will like the rest of what that entails, eg reporting and kyc requirements. Thsoe will likely make daos more useful, but less differentiated from existing structures