5 ms·

Ok but what if someone's killed due to taking advice from an AI? Certainly it's not hard to imagine a near future where AI is good enough that it's a well-trust

Ok but what if someone's killed due to taking advice from an AI? Certainly it's not hard to imagine a near future where AI is good enough that it's a well-trusted first port of call for medical diagnoses and the like, and a sloppily or maliciously trained system would surely have the potential for being "responsible" for deaths caused by the wrong advice - but who would be legally responsible?

RecycledEle 3y ago
The person who operates the PC is responsible, not the programmer.
nradov 3y ago
No one is legally responsible for giving bad medical advice unless they are a licensed clinician. If I as a random person tell you to cure your headache by drilling a hole in your skull, and you're stupid enough do it, then that's on you. There is no need for additional laws in this area.
- wizofaus 3y ago
  Except AI clearly isn't equivalent to a "random person" - as I said, I'm talking about a foreseeable future where we have good reason to trust AI technology as a go-to source for, say, basic medical diagnoses or advice on how to undertake home or device repairs etc. I would think it's not so dissimilar to the responsibility the media has for not distributing potentially dangerous information that the public would otherwise be expected to trust and potentially act on. The difference being that AI-generated content is very much disconnected from the actions/decisions/input of any one human being.
  - nradov 3y ago
    You're not making any sense. The media has no such responsibility. There is no foreseeable future where we have good reason to trust AI technology as source for medical diagnoses. But fools have already been diagnosing themselves based on random sources since before modern medicine even existed.
    - wizofaus 3y ago
      Again, the media is very much NOT a "random source" of information. I don't know about the US but in many other countries (my own included) the media does have such a responsibility, even if many of the codes of conduct in existence currently are largely voluntary (though in countries less committed to free speech/liberal democracy etc. there are often quite strong penalties for publishing information that is deemed to be somehow unsafe for the public). Medical diagnosis was just one possible example, by the way, but I think you're very much mistaken that there's no likelihood that within our lifetimes we'll have good reason to trust and depend on it in that particular area.

RecycledEle 3y ago

The person who operates the PC is responsible, not the programmer.

nradov 3y ago

No one is legally responsible for giving bad medical advice unless they are a licensed clinician. If I as a random person tell you to cure your headache by drilling a hole in your skull, and you're stupid enough do it, then that's on you. There is no need for additional laws in this area.

wizofaus 3y ago
Except AI clearly isn't equivalent to a "random person" - as I said, I'm talking about a foreseeable future where we have good reason to trust AI technology as a go-to source for, say, basic medical diagnoses or advice on how to undertake home or device repairs etc. I would think it's not so dissimilar to the responsibility the media has for not distributing potentially dangerous information that the public would otherwise be expected to trust and potentially act on. The difference being that AI-generated content is very much disconnected from the actions/decisions/input of any one human being.
- nradov 3y ago
  You're not making any sense. The media has no such responsibility. There is no foreseeable future where we have good reason to trust AI technology as source for medical diagnoses. But fools have already been diagnosing themselves based on random sources since before modern medicine even existed.
  - wizofaus 3y ago
    Again, the media is very much NOT a "random source" of information. I don't know about the US but in many other countries (my own included) the media does have such a responsibility, even if many of the codes of conduct in existence currently are largely voluntary (though in countries less committed to free speech/liberal democracy etc. there are often quite strong penalties for publishing information that is deemed to be somehow unsafe for the public). Medical diagnosis was just one possible example, by the way, but I think you're very much mistaken that there's no likelihood that within our lifetimes we'll have good reason to trust and depend on it in that particular area.