3 ms·
Has "the AI did it" ever been a valid defense? I can see why the legislature might want to make it explicit that it is not, but surely it can't be the case that
by gweinberg 2y ago
Has "the AI did it" ever been a valid defense? I can see why the legislature might want to make it explicit that it is not, but surely it can't be the case that harm caused by an AI is treated as if it were an act of God.
- malfist 2y agoNot yet probably, but "too expensive to comply" is a common refrain from big tech when they break the law. Look at all the excuses Uber has made
- bean-weevil 2y agoI agree. If you hire someone, and they aggrieve someone in the course of their duties, your contractor is your agent and you're responsible for what they did. It makes no sense to treat AI any differently.
- kjs3 2y agoWhile it's not been wrung out in the courts yet, the insurance industry has been denying coverage based on "the AI said so" for a while, coupled tightly with "we can't tell you why because the algorithm is a trade secret". Given the current governance and oversight climate, I don't have much hope that more transparency is in the offing.