5 ms·

This and other proposed legislation is attempting to hit the ball out of the park on the first pitch. I feel it would be a lot more sensible and effective to le

by nvrmnd 3y ago

This and other proposed legislation is attempting to hit the ball out of the park on the first pitch. I feel it would be a lot more sensible and effective to legislate clear and present harms, such as holding developing firms liable for deep-fake technology if used for identity theft for the purpose of fraud.

ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
Should I be able to sue Honda because someone in their Civic ran into me? A users misuse of a technology shouldn't be the responsibility of the developer. You could apply this to almost every product in the world otherwise.
- thinkingtoilet 3y ago
  If it was found they were reckless, absolutely. I believe this is already the case.
  - ronsor 3y ago
    I don't. Software developers and researchers should not be liable for distributing information or code, even if it's used for something illegal, as long as they aren't explicitly promoting the illegal activity and don't have any involvement with it outside of creating the software. Not only is that consistent with previous decisions, such as those regarding copyright (i.e. torrents are fine, but making a client to torrent movies specifically isn't), but also any other decision would be a violation of the social contract with regard to open-source development.
    - theamk 3y ago
      the original comment explicitly said "holding developing firms ..." - so this is not about software developers, it is about corporations. The moment you start to sell stuff is the moment you become liable.
      - asadotzler 3y ago
        HN doesn't know how to make that distinction any more. It's so overrun with corporate bootlickers who think the software engineers ARE the company and the company IS the software engineers. I presume it's just a bunch of temporarily embarrassed billionaires planning for the future, but it's a shame that a once hacker-friendly forum is now mostly focused on compensation maximization and defending trillion dollar corporations.
    - autoexec 3y ago
      If a bridge collapses and people are hurt the engineer is at fault and should be held accountable. If software fails and people are hurt the software engineer is at fault and should be held accountable.
      - ronsor 3y ago
        This is a poor analogy. A better one would be if a murderer used your bridge to escape. Should you be held liable? What if the bridge were designed to handle highway speeds so he could escape faster?
        autoexec 3y ago
        I'd agree that they shouldn't be liable in that case, since the bridge works the same for everybody (no matter why they're driving over it) and is working as designed/intended. It's really only the idea that developers shouldn't be liable for their code as long as they aren't explicitly promoting illegal activity and don't have any involvement with it outside of creating the software that I take issue with.
        ronsor 3y ago
        General AI tools also work the same for all users. It's not as if the average AI company is optimizing for celebrity deepfake nudes or spambots. I mean, there are really two categories of software: * Free and/or open source software. In this case, I think there is no good reason to make the developer liable, unless they're promoting illegal use. No person wants to be attacked for giving away something for free. That's why the LICENSE. * Commercial/paid software. In this case, it is reasonable to argue that companies should be liable if end users are harmed by the software. For paid software especially, disclaimers cannot be absolute. But I do not think it is acceptable to hold developers liable for second-order effects - i.e., a user doing something illegal with the software and harming a third party - unless it was obvious to them that the user was going to do something illegal.
        asadotzler 3y ago
    - bluGill 3y ago
      Torrents are fine because there are legal purposes. Developers of torrent software are very careful to emphasize the legal uses.
      - ronsor 3y ago
        There are legal purposes for generative AI tools and even deepfakes, so there should be no issues with the tools themselves. Obviously if a site promotes "download this tool to generate infinite nude pictures of celebrities", then that is illegal, since that particular tool was only developed for illegal uses.
        asadotzler 3y ago
        There are legal purposes for cars and guns and we regulate the hell out of them because there are also plenty of not-legal purposes and even just the potential for accidents. When A.I. is as heavily regulated as cars, we can revisit the "it's just a tool" argument.
        ronsor 3y ago
        We can revisit the argument when an image generation AI causes a fatal accident with 5 other vehicles.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  If their Civic's brakes were poorly designed or implemented, then yes, Honda should be liable. Then we get into the definition of 'poorly' - in what distance and time should the car stop? - and then we need some sophisticated regulation.
  - jolmg 3y ago
    The analogue of someone using deep-fakes for fraud is for someone to purposefully hit a pedestrian with their car. Should Honda be held liable because someone tried to use their car as a weapon? The classical form of this argument is if a kitchen knife manufacturer should be held liable if someone used their knives for homicide.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      In that case, I think you have a point. However, consider these situations: * Honda made their car poorly and there are sharp edges at the fenders, and the driver purposely used those to injure someone. I think Honda should still have some liability; their poor construction resulted in extra injury, regardless of the application. * Honda intentionally or with recklessness built the car in a way that would serve as a useful tool for murder, in ways that served no worthwhile purpose, in ways that could be secured. I don't know the law exactly, but I expect Honda would be liable, and IMHO that would be absolutely right. Still, if Honda builds a safe car and someone simply chooses to use its mass x acceleration to kill someone, then I wouldn't hold Honda liable.
    - clucas 3y ago
      This analogy is strained, because when it comes to motor vehicles, aside from the concept of "street legal" cars that limit what you can do with the vehicle, we also have cops that patrol the streets and cameras that can catch people breaking the rules based on license plate. Theoretically you can't drive around without being registered. What's the equivalent of that for AI? Should there be a watermark so police can trace an image back to a particular person's software? If that isn't acceptable (and I don't think it would be), how do we prevent people from producing deep fakes? At the distribution level? These are hard problems, and I don't think the car analogy really gets us anywhere.
- mike_d 3y ago
  Yes, if the Civic had a feature that made it easier to hit you, or lacked a reasonable feature that would have prevented it from hitting you. We have a long history of legally targeting companies that produce products targeted at criminal activity or implied criminal activity.
  - ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
    >Yes, if the Civic had a feature that made it easier to hit you, or lacked a reasonable feature that would have prevented it from hitting you. Ah but some cars today have automatic breaking, so can I sue the manufacturer for not including one? Maybe Toyota's would have seen the pedestrian, is it reasonable to assume Honda's should have as well? Since this is a safety issue, why did Honda allow the car to even start without an up to date pedestrian detection system? Does this help you see the issue?
    - clucas 3y ago
      As I said down-thread a bit... the issue with your car analogy is that we force everyone to get a license and register their car before they can drive around. Do you want to have to get a license and register your AI model before you're allowed to start generating images or text? If so, maybe that is a solution. But I doubt anyone would accept that sort of system. So, saying "you can't sue Honda if someone drives into you," while true, doesn't really get us anywhere in addressing the issues with AI.
      - ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
        >So, saying "you can't sue Honda if someone drives into you," while true, doesn't really get us anywhere in addressing the issues with AI. I'm not trying to address any perceived 'issues' with ai here, I'm pointing out the flaw in holding the developer/ manufacturer liable for what a end user does. Also I could switch the analogy to planning a robbery over WhatsApp, hacking into a bank using 'pentration testing tools' or even just windows itself for allowing users to run any software they want. Or maybe windows allows piracy by not scanning every file against a hash of known piracy content. You can make up a million scenarios of end users misusing products, I'm sorry you don't like the car one.
- bluGill 3y ago
  If Honda says that the Civic is good for running into people then yes - as this is the clear purpose. Or if Honda says you don't have to worry as it is not possible to hit someone - because they promised that took care of things. Note that courts take advertising over warning labels and the manual. Which is why many car ads have the text "professional driver on closed track on screen" - make it clear they they think car can do it but not most customers. Likewise cutting tools often have "guards removed for clarity" are clearly not operating (or clearly a cartoon image and not the real tool) - if they advertise someone running the tool without the guard they are liable. There is also the concept of foreseeable misuse in courts. If you can imagine someone would do that you have do show the courts that isn't the intended purpose and you tried to prevent it. If someone does something you didn't think of, then you need to show the court you put a reasonable effort into figuring out all the possible misuses otherwise it becomes a lack of creativity on your part. Thinking of a misuse doesn't mean you have to make it impossible, just you have to make reasonable effort to ensure that doesn't happen (guards, warning labels, training, not selling to some customers - all are common tactics to sell something that can be misused without being liable, but even there you can't put a warning label on something if you could have placed a guard on the danger) The above just brushes the surface of what the courts deal with (and different countries have different laws). If you need details talk to a lawyer.
- screye 3y ago
  I'm suspicious of this bill, but your analogy does more to show how cars are horrifyingly unregulated than push for individual responsibility. The car allows you to break the law by going 2x faster than the highest speed limit in the nation. A faster car, with higher ground clearance does make it easier to fatally run into someone. The Tesla cybertruck is a killing machine in car form. Cars are the leading cause of death in the US. Maybe we need to have a similar 'pre-emptive manufacturer-side intervention' bill for cars too.
- nvrmnd 3y ago
  If there was legislation that required Honda to install certain safety features and they failed to do so, then yes they should be liable.
mullingitover 3y ago
> I feel it would be a lot more sensible and effective to legislate clear and present harms, such as holding developing firms liable for deep-fake technology if used for identity theft for the purpose of fraud. s/deep-fake/photoshop Deepfakes are simply more convenient photo/video/audio editing that has been around for decades[1], and we don't really need new legislation to deal with them. Fraud/defamation/etc, the actual harmful aspects of what can be accomplished with deepfakes, don't need any new updates to handle the technology. If we're going to hobble new technologies, we may as well go back and hold Adobe responsible for all the shady things people have done with Photoshop, and video/audio editing suites for all the deceptive clips people have spliced together. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La5jrfobfTM&t=1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La5jrfobfTM&t=1s
- gary_0 3y ago
  s/photoshop/airbrush I vaguely recall seeing some fairly convincing B&W Soviet-era photos (I think they had Stalin in them) where people were removed and other people moved around to fill the gap. And document forgery for the purposes of fraud and espionage has of course been around for centuries. But I think the issue is less the capability itself, and more that companies will make it too easy (trivial, actually) for anyone to commit mischief. The ability to mass-manipulate images on command is no longer restricted to the General Secretary of the USSR. That doesn't necessarily mean regulation is required, though--plenty of modern technologies make it very easy to commit crimes, but only some of them require special rules.
ajmurmann 3y ago
I understood the bill to explicitly not target misuse of the AI (from the article: "Odd that ‘a model autonomously engaging in a sustained sequence of unsafe behavior’ only counts as an ‘AI safety incident’ if it is not ‘at the request of a user.’ If a user requests that, aren’t you supposed to ensure the model doesn’t do it? Sounds to me like a safety incident."). This seems to be entirely targeted at potential risk from a rogue AI. What regulation would you propose to address that risk?

by nvrmnd 3y ago

ApolloFortyNine 3y ago

Should I be able to sue Honda because someone in their Civic ran into me? A users misuse of a technology shouldn't be the responsibility of the developer. You could apply this to almost every product in the world otherwise.

thinkingtoilet 3y ago
If it was found they were reckless, absolutely. I believe this is already the case.
- ronsor 3y ago
  I don't. Software developers and researchers should not be liable for distributing information or code, even if it's used for something illegal, as long as they aren't explicitly promoting the illegal activity and don't have any involvement with it outside of creating the software. Not only is that consistent with previous decisions, such as those regarding copyright (i.e. torrents are fine, but making a client to torrent movies specifically isn't), but also any other decision would be a violation of the social contract with regard to open-source development.
  - theamk 3y ago
    the original comment explicitly said "holding developing firms ..." - so this is not about software developers, it is about corporations. The moment you start to sell stuff is the moment you become liable.
    - asadotzler 3y ago
      HN doesn't know how to make that distinction any more. It's so overrun with corporate bootlickers who think the software engineers ARE the company and the company IS the software engineers. I presume it's just a bunch of temporarily embarrassed billionaires planning for the future, but it's a shame that a once hacker-friendly forum is now mostly focused on compensation maximization and defending trillion dollar corporations.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    If a bridge collapses and people are hurt the engineer is at fault and should be held accountable. If software fails and people are hurt the software engineer is at fault and should be held accountable.
    - ronsor 3y ago
      This is a poor analogy. A better one would be if a murderer used your bridge to escape. Should you be held liable? What if the bridge were designed to handle highway speeds so he could escape faster?
      - autoexec 3y ago
        I'd agree that they shouldn't be liable in that case, since the bridge works the same for everybody (no matter why they're driving over it) and is working as designed/intended. It's really only the idea that developers shouldn't be liable for their code as long as they aren't explicitly promoting illegal activity and don't have any involvement with it outside of creating the software that I take issue with.
        ronsor 3y ago
        General AI tools also work the same for all users. It's not as if the average AI company is optimizing for celebrity deepfake nudes or spambots. I mean, there are really two categories of software: * Free and/or open source software. In this case, I think there is no good reason to make the developer liable, unless they're promoting illegal use. No person wants to be attacked for giving away something for free. That's why the LICENSE. * Commercial/paid software. In this case, it is reasonable to argue that companies should be liable if end users are harmed by the software. For paid software especially, disclaimers cannot be absolute. But I do not think it is acceptable to hold developers liable for second-order effects - i.e., a user doing something illegal with the software and harming a third party - unless it was obvious to them that the user was going to do something illegal.
        asadotzler 3y ago
  - bluGill 3y ago
    Torrents are fine because there are legal purposes. Developers of torrent software are very careful to emphasize the legal uses.
    - ronsor 3y ago
      There are legal purposes for generative AI tools and even deepfakes, so there should be no issues with the tools themselves. Obviously if a site promotes "download this tool to generate infinite nude pictures of celebrities", then that is illegal, since that particular tool was only developed for illegal uses.
      - asadotzler 3y ago
        There are legal purposes for cars and guns and we regulate the hell out of them because there are also plenty of not-legal purposes and even just the potential for accidents. When A.I. is as heavily regulated as cars, we can revisit the "it's just a tool" argument.
        ronsor 3y ago
        We can revisit the argument when an image generation AI causes a fatal accident with 5 other vehicles.
wolverine876 3y ago
If their Civic's brakes were poorly designed or implemented, then yes, Honda should be liable. Then we get into the definition of 'poorly' - in what distance and time should the car stop? - and then we need some sophisticated regulation.
- jolmg 3y ago
  The analogue of someone using deep-fakes for fraud is for someone to purposefully hit a pedestrian with their car. Should Honda be held liable because someone tried to use their car as a weapon? The classical form of this argument is if a kitchen knife manufacturer should be held liable if someone used their knives for homicide.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    In that case, I think you have a point. However, consider these situations: * Honda made their car poorly and there are sharp edges at the fenders, and the driver purposely used those to injure someone. I think Honda should still have some liability; their poor construction resulted in extra injury, regardless of the application. * Honda intentionally or with recklessness built the car in a way that would serve as a useful tool for murder, in ways that served no worthwhile purpose, in ways that could be secured. I don't know the law exactly, but I expect Honda would be liable, and IMHO that would be absolutely right. Still, if Honda builds a safe car and someone simply chooses to use its mass x acceleration to kill someone, then I wouldn't hold Honda liable.
  - clucas 3y ago
    This analogy is strained, because when it comes to motor vehicles, aside from the concept of "street legal" cars that limit what you can do with the vehicle, we also have cops that patrol the streets and cameras that can catch people breaking the rules based on license plate. Theoretically you can't drive around without being registered. What's the equivalent of that for AI? Should there be a watermark so police can trace an image back to a particular person's software? If that isn't acceptable (and I don't think it would be), how do we prevent people from producing deep fakes? At the distribution level? These are hard problems, and I don't think the car analogy really gets us anywhere.
mike_d 3y ago
Yes, if the Civic had a feature that made it easier to hit you, or lacked a reasonable feature that would have prevented it from hitting you. We have a long history of legally targeting companies that produce products targeted at criminal activity or implied criminal activity.
- ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
  >Yes, if the Civic had a feature that made it easier to hit you, or lacked a reasonable feature that would have prevented it from hitting you. Ah but some cars today have automatic breaking, so can I sue the manufacturer for not including one? Maybe Toyota's would have seen the pedestrian, is it reasonable to assume Honda's should have as well? Since this is a safety issue, why did Honda allow the car to even start without an up to date pedestrian detection system? Does this help you see the issue?
  - clucas 3y ago
    As I said down-thread a bit... the issue with your car analogy is that we force everyone to get a license and register their car before they can drive around. Do you want to have to get a license and register your AI model before you're allowed to start generating images or text? If so, maybe that is a solution. But I doubt anyone would accept that sort of system. So, saying "you can't sue Honda if someone drives into you," while true, doesn't really get us anywhere in addressing the issues with AI.
    - ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
      >So, saying "you can't sue Honda if someone drives into you," while true, doesn't really get us anywhere in addressing the issues with AI. I'm not trying to address any perceived 'issues' with ai here, I'm pointing out the flaw in holding the developer/ manufacturer liable for what a end user does. Also I could switch the analogy to planning a robbery over WhatsApp, hacking into a bank using 'pentration testing tools' or even just windows itself for allowing users to run any software they want. Or maybe windows allows piracy by not scanning every file against a hash of known piracy content. You can make up a million scenarios of end users misusing products, I'm sorry you don't like the car one.
bluGill 3y ago
If Honda says that the Civic is good for running into people then yes - as this is the clear purpose. Or if Honda says you don't have to worry as it is not possible to hit someone - because they promised that took care of things. Note that courts take advertising over warning labels and the manual. Which is why many car ads have the text "professional driver on closed track on screen" - make it clear they they think car can do it but not most customers. Likewise cutting tools often have "guards removed for clarity" are clearly not operating (or clearly a cartoon image and not the real tool) - if they advertise someone running the tool without the guard they are liable. There is also the concept of foreseeable misuse in courts. If you can imagine someone would do that you have do show the courts that isn't the intended purpose and you tried to prevent it. If someone does something you didn't think of, then you need to show the court you put a reasonable effort into figuring out all the possible misuses otherwise it becomes a lack of creativity on your part. Thinking of a misuse doesn't mean you have to make it impossible, just you have to make reasonable effort to ensure that doesn't happen (guards, warning labels, training, not selling to some customers - all are common tactics to sell something that can be misused without being liable, but even there you can't put a warning label on something if you could have placed a guard on the danger) The above just brushes the surface of what the courts deal with (and different countries have different laws). If you need details talk to a lawyer.
screye 3y ago
I'm suspicious of this bill, but your analogy does more to show how cars are horrifyingly unregulated than push for individual responsibility. The car allows you to break the law by going 2x faster than the highest speed limit in the nation. A faster car, with higher ground clearance does make it easier to fatally run into someone. The Tesla cybertruck is a killing machine in car form. Cars are the leading cause of death in the US. Maybe we need to have a similar 'pre-emptive manufacturer-side intervention' bill for cars too.
nvrmnd 3y ago
If there was legislation that required Honda to install certain safety features and they failed to do so, then yes they should be liable.

mullingitover 3y ago

> I feel it would be a lot more sensible and effective to legislate clear and present harms, such as holding developing firms liable for deep-fake technology if used for identity theft for the purpose of fraud. s/deep-fake/photoshop Deepfakes are simply more convenient photo/video/audio editing that has been around for decades[1], and we don't really need new legislation to deal with them. Fraud/defamation/etc, the actual harmful aspects of what can be accomplished with deepfakes, don't need any new updates to handle the technology. If we're going to hobble new technologies, we may as well go back and hold Adobe responsible for all the shady things people have done with Photoshop, and video/audio editing suites for all the deceptive clips people have spliced together. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La5jrfobfTM&t=1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La5jrfobfTM&t=1s

gary_0 3y ago
s/photoshop/airbrush I vaguely recall seeing some fairly convincing B&W Soviet-era photos (I think they had Stalin in them) where people were removed and other people moved around to fill the gap. And document forgery for the purposes of fraud and espionage has of course been around for centuries. But I think the issue is less the capability itself, and more that companies will make it too easy (trivial, actually) for anyone to commit mischief. The ability to mass-manipulate images on command is no longer restricted to the General Secretary of the USSR. That doesn't necessarily mean regulation is required, though--plenty of modern technologies make it very easy to commit crimes, but only some of them require special rules.

ajmurmann 3y ago

I understood the bill to explicitly not target misuse of the AI (from the article: "Odd that ‘a model autonomously engaging in a sustained sequence of unsafe behavior’ only counts as an ‘AI safety incident’ if it is not ‘at the request of a user.’ If a user requests that, aren’t you supposed to ensure the model doesn’t do it? Sounds to me like a safety incident."). This seems to be entirely targeted at potential risk from a rogue AI. What regulation would you propose to address that risk?