4 ms·
>Suppose these models are found to be reliable enough for certain mission critical work (healthcare, defense, etc.) and they lead a user down a path that result
by xamuel 3y ago
>Suppose these models are found to be reliable enough for certain mission critical work (healthcare, defense, etc.) and they lead a user down a path that results in harm or death? Who's at fault? Suppose it becomes a liability of the company offering the model? How does the insurance market respond?
So much this. I think a lot of people overlook this aspect so much. I wonder if we'll see a corporate push to make people think of individual instantiations of LLMs as being their own entities, for scapegoating purposes. It's completely ludicrous, but you know they'd just love to point a finger at Machine #73583 and make that take all the blame.
- chasd00 3y ago> corporate push to make people think of individual instantiations of LLMs as being their own entities, for scapegoating purposes an airline already tried this. "Air Canada argues it cannot be held liable for information provided by one of its agents, servants, or representatives – including a chatbot. It does not explain why it believes that is the case. In effect, Air Canada suggests the chatbot is a separate legal entity that is responsible for its own actions." https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisagarcia/2024/02/19/what-air-canada-lost-in-remarkable-lying-ai-chatbot-case/?sh=359cbefa696f https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisagarcia/2024/02/19/what-ai...
- mr_toad 3y agoThey lost that case. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/16/air-canada-chatbot-lawsuit https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/16/air-canada-cha...
- astrange 3y agoAlso, the original incident happened in November 22, which is before the release of ChatGPT, so I'm not sure the chatbot was even an LLM. It might just've been programmed wrong.