3 ms·
I'm sure companies would love that. Business model of big-corp X: "We deploy an AI model to make 100 million health care decisions per day and the AI-model is
by rickdeckard 3y ago
I'm sure companies would love that.
Business model of big-corp X:
"We deploy an AI model to make 100 million health care decisions per day and the AI-model is supervised by a independent certified doctor we contracted. Legally it should be treated like that doctor made those decisions, since he supervised the model.
In case of any regulatory breach, the doctor who was hired for the task should be prosecuted, we replace that doctor, tweak the model and keep going.
This way we can charge 100 million units of health diagnosis, and based on custom parameters we can decide i.e. which brand of painkiller should be prescribed.
If that's not legally abstracted enough: Let's license the model to doctors based on a per-decision-license, allowing them to boost their daily insurance-claims for a small revenue-share, but requiring them to approve each diagnosis in some kind of UI"
- from-nibly 3y agoJust because you hired A doctor doesn't mean your company isn't liable. Otherwise companies would pull this any time they get sued. And in your second case insurance companies wouldn't insure doctors that did that if they were liable. Assuming the diagnosis comes out bad.
- rickdeckard 3y agoIn a world where "AI should not be regulated", there are lots of possible corporate constructs where the "people and organizations using them" are decoupled from the entity which owns the AI, securing it from ever becoming liable for its actions. Already today it's really hard to prove liability for a car company providing self-driving services and not just the driver using them. And that area IS REGULATED.
- weikju 3y agoOk so add the people/orgs running it as well as those using it. Otherwise you risk neutering the tech itself rather than neuter bad/ignorant actors.