3 ms·

Right, these are the same arguments against uncontrolled empowerment that I imagine mass literacy and the printing press faced. I would prefer to live in a soci

by 4bpp 3y ago

Right, these are the same arguments against uncontrolled empowerment that I imagine mass literacy and the printing press faced. I would prefer to live in a society where individual freedom, at least in the cognitive domain, is protected by a more robust principle than "we have reviewed the pros and cons of giving you the freedom to do this, and determined the former to outweigh the latter for the time being".

pixl97 3y ago
You seem to be very confused about civil versus criminal penalties.... Feel free to make an AI model that does almost anything, though I'd probably suggest that it doesn't make porn of minors as that is criminal in most jurisdiction, short of that it's probably not a criminal offense. Most companies are only very slightly worried about criminal offenses, they are far more concerned about civil trials. There is a far lower requirement for evidence. AI creator in email "Hmm, this could be dangerous". That's all you need to lose a civil trial.
- 4bpp 3y ago
  Why do you figure I would be confused? Whether any liability for drawing porn of classmates is civil or criminal is orthogonal to the AI comparison. The question is if we would hold manufacturers of drawing tools or software, or purveyors of drawing knowledge (such as learn-to-draw books), liable, because they are playing the same role as the generative AI does here.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Because you seem to be very confused on civil liabilities in most products. Manufactures are commonly held liable for the users use of products, for example look at any number of products that have caused injury.
    - 4bpp 3y ago
      Surely those are typically when the manufacturer was taken to have made an implicit promise of safety to the user and their surroundings, and the user got injured. If your fridge topples onto you and you get injured, the manufacturer might be liable; if you set up a trap where you topple your fridge onto a hapless passer-by, the manufacturer will probably not be liable towards them. Likewise with the classic McDonalds coffee spill liability story - I've yet to hear of a case of a coffee vendor being held liable over a deliberate attack where someone splashed someone else with hot coffee.
- Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
  > You seem to be very confused about civil versus criminal penalties.... Nah, I think it's a disagreement over whether a tool's maker gets blamed for evil use or the tool's user. It's a similar argument over whether or not gun manufacturers should have any liability for their products being used for murder.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    >It's a similar argument over whether or not gun manufacturers This is really only a debate in the US and only because it's directly written in the constitution. Pretty much no other product works that way.
darkwater 3y ago
Are we on the same HN that bashes Facebook/Twitter/X/TikTok/ads because they manipulate people, spread fake news or destroyed attention span?

by 4bpp 3y ago

pixl97 3y ago

You seem to be very confused about civil versus criminal penalties.... Feel free to make an AI model that does almost anything, though I'd probably suggest that it doesn't make porn of minors as that is criminal in most jurisdiction, short of that it's probably not a criminal offense. Most companies are only very slightly worried about criminal offenses, they are far more concerned about civil trials. There is a far lower requirement for evidence. AI creator in email "Hmm, this could be dangerous". That's all you need to lose a civil trial.

4bpp 3y ago
Why do you figure I would be confused? Whether any liability for drawing porn of classmates is civil or criminal is orthogonal to the AI comparison. The question is if we would hold manufacturers of drawing tools or software, or purveyors of drawing knowledge (such as learn-to-draw books), liable, because they are playing the same role as the generative AI does here.
- pixl97 3y ago
  Because you seem to be very confused on civil liabilities in most products. Manufactures are commonly held liable for the users use of products, for example look at any number of products that have caused injury.
  - 4bpp 3y ago
    Surely those are typically when the manufacturer was taken to have made an implicit promise of safety to the user and their surroundings, and the user got injured. If your fridge topples onto you and you get injured, the manufacturer might be liable; if you set up a trap where you topple your fridge onto a hapless passer-by, the manufacturer will probably not be liable towards them. Likewise with the classic McDonalds coffee spill liability story - I've yet to hear of a case of a coffee vendor being held liable over a deliberate attack where someone splashed someone else with hot coffee.
Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
> You seem to be very confused about civil versus criminal penalties.... Nah, I think it's a disagreement over whether a tool's maker gets blamed for evil use or the tool's user. It's a similar argument over whether or not gun manufacturers should have any liability for their products being used for murder.
- pixl97 3y ago
  >It's a similar argument over whether or not gun manufacturers This is really only a debate in the US and only because it's directly written in the constitution. Pretty much no other product works that way.

darkwater 3y ago

Are we on the same HN that bashes Facebook/Twitter/X/TikTok/ads because they manipulate people, spread fake news or destroyed attention span?