4 ms·
> Having looked at drafts of legislation and position statements of governments, many are looking at legally requiring that any implementers of AI systems that
by nine_zeros 2y ago
> Having looked at drafts of legislation and position statements of governments, many are looking at legally requiring that any implementers of AI systems that make determinations must implement processes to deal with the situation where the AI makes an incorrect determination
The real legislation we need is liability. Who is liable to suffering caused by LLMs inaccuracies?
I think if liability should be on corporations selling the LLM as a solution.
If a person gets arrested for selling the police a fuzzy LLM solution, and this causes unnecessary grief to the individual, the seller of the LLM service must compensate the individual with 4x the median income of their metropolitan area, for the duration of the harm caused.
- phs318u 2y ago> liability should be on corporations selling the LLM as a solution I agree. There was a period of time (don't know if it's still the case), where Microsoft Windows licenses/ToS expressly and explicitly did not warrant the use of the OS for a whole bunch of critical use-cases (e.g. anything with the word 'nuclear' in it). If the vendor doesn't warrant it for that use, then you'd be remiss in your duty to your company to ignore that and choose to use it for that purpose. Caveat emptor.