3 ms·

I don't understand how a user will be liable when they are receiving non-deterministic outputs and have no objective way to know or control what they receive.

smoldesu 3y ago
Ignoring the fact that most online services (and free software licenses) enforce limited liability, the actual demonstrable harm of bad LLM output stems from sharing it. If you generate a harmful, hateful, incorrect or offensive LLM generation and publish it without context, you are responsible for spreading that information. The fact that someone (or something) else wrote it doesn't appear to have any meaningful difference in-context. I don't understand how anyone but the user could be liable for misusing an AI platform. If this upcoming legislation looks any different from Section 230, I'll be shocked.
shaburn 3y ago
I am not referencing republishing the output results. That is a seperate act entirely. There are countless examples, particularly in regulated usecases, where threads are audited. Thus, who is liable for the output of the LLM in those threads?
- wmf 3y ago
  Free speech is pretty strong in the US. They can probably work around many restrictions with "this is not medical/legal/financial advice" disclaimers. It's legal for Google to give search results that are completely wrong so AI is no worse.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  > I am not referencing republishing the output results. Okay, then what exactly are the harms you're referring to? Boneheaded implementations that need a scapegoat when it breaks? If your system isn't accounting for the regular failure of AI, you haven't built an AI-ready system. > There are countless examples, particularly in regulated usecases, where threads are audited. Thus, who is liable for the output of the LLM in those threads? Whoever's idea it was to give AI control over that situation is the person who assumes liability. If a government audit reveals that someone is using an LLM to respond to emails, they're not going to blame OpenAI. These situations exist because motivated individuals, knowledgeably or not, create unreliable systems that they themselves are responsible for. The only realistic and effective stance is implicating offenders on an individual basis. This entire post feels like you're trying to direct us towards some answer, but I'm not really getting where you're going. Who do you think should be responsible?

smoldesu 3y ago

Ignoring the fact that most online services (and free software licenses) enforce limited liability, the actual demonstrable harm of bad LLM output stems from sharing it. If you generate a harmful, hateful, incorrect or offensive LLM generation and publish it without context, you are responsible for spreading that information. The fact that someone (or something) else wrote it doesn't appear to have any meaningful difference in-context. I don't understand how anyone but the user could be liable for misusing an AI platform. If this upcoming legislation looks any different from Section 230, I'll be shocked.

shaburn 3y ago

I am not referencing republishing the output results. That is a seperate act entirely. There are countless examples, particularly in regulated usecases, where threads are audited. Thus, who is liable for the output of the LLM in those threads?

wmf 3y ago
Free speech is pretty strong in the US. They can probably work around many restrictions with "this is not medical/legal/financial advice" disclaimers. It's legal for Google to give search results that are completely wrong so AI is no worse.
smoldesu 3y ago
> I am not referencing republishing the output results. Okay, then what exactly are the harms you're referring to? Boneheaded implementations that need a scapegoat when it breaks? If your system isn't accounting for the regular failure of AI, you haven't built an AI-ready system. > There are countless examples, particularly in regulated usecases, where threads are audited. Thus, who is liable for the output of the LLM in those threads? Whoever's idea it was to give AI control over that situation is the person who assumes liability. If a government audit reveals that someone is using an LLM to respond to emails, they're not going to blame OpenAI. These situations exist because motivated individuals, knowledgeably or not, create unreliable systems that they themselves are responsible for. The only realistic and effective stance is implicating offenders on an individual basis. This entire post feels like you're trying to direct us towards some answer, but I'm not really getting where you're going. Who do you think should be responsible?