3 ms·
The onus is on organizations to not sell or offer knowingly harmful services to the public. Any judge or jury will interpret a company directly advising the cus
by HeatrayEnjoyer 1y ago
The onus is on organizations to not sell or offer knowingly harmful services to the public. Any judge or jury will interpret a company directly advising the customer to jump to their death as knowingly harmful. Every engineer at an AI company is one dead person in a wealthy family away from legal liability, maybe criminally.
- harvey9 1y agoA wealthy family? If justice is a contest of money, there are few families who can outbid the various parties interested in selling chatbots.
- resource_waste 1y agoEven a poor family will get the backing of lobbying groups who's best interest is to ban their competitor. Not to mention, the moral coating, which matters at least a tiny bit in domestic politics. (Note, I think the moral coating is actually incorrect, but the majority of people are not thinking critically, they see N=1 and make emotional decisions)
- sodality2 1y agoI think interpreting a chatbot’s output as a company’s “direct advice” is an unsubstantiated jump. In the same way that if an unhandled error code in a program resulted in “DIE DIE DIE”, “Abort/kill child”, etc (trying to make these programming-related here) being alerted to the user, no reasonable person would hold the company responsible for the user taking this as a command. Imagine if we lived in a world where arbitrary text being sent by an entity could result in prosecution? I just don’t believe the chat UI to be a big enough bridge between the two examples to justify it.