6 ms·

>...its purpose is to “prioritize safety and awareness through rapid human verification. Oh look, a corporation refusing to take responsibility for literally a

>...its purpose is to “prioritize safety and awareness through rapid human verification. Oh look, a corporation refusing to take responsibility for literally anything. How passe.

chillingeffect 1y ago
The invention of the corporation is virtually to eliminate responsibility/culpability from any individual. Human car crash? Human punishment. Corporate-owned car crash? A fine which reduces salaries some negligible percent.
- perplex3d 1y ago
  Yes, corporations have all of the rights of a person, abilities beyond a person, yet few of the responsibilities of a person.
  - parineum 1y ago
    They actually don't have all the rights of a person and they do have those same responsibilities. If this company was a sole proprietorship, the only recourse this kid would have is to sue the owner, up to bankruptcy. Since it's a corporation, his recourse is to sue the company, up to bankruptcy. As for corporations having rights, I can explain it further if necessary but the key understanding is that the singular of "corporations are people" is "a corporation is people" not "a corporation is a person".
    - wkat4242 1y ago
      You can't put a corporation in prison. But a person you can. This is one of the big problems. The people making the decisions at corporations are shielded from personal consequences by the corporation. A corporation can be shut down but it rarely happens. Even when Boeing knowingly caused the deaths of hundreds (especially the second crash was entirely preventable if they would have been honest after the first one), all they got were some fines. Those just end up being charged back to their customers, a big one being the government who fined them in the first place.
      - zdragnar 1y ago
        You need a judge and jury for prison sentences for criminal convictions. If the government decides to prosecute the matter as a civil infraction, or doesn't even bother prosecuting but just has an executive agency hand out a fine, that's not a matter of the corporation shielding people, that's a matter of the government failing to prosecute or secure a conviction.
      - parineum 1y ago
        > Even when Boeing knowingly caused the deaths Since corporations aren't people, Boeing didn't know anything. Did someone at Boeing have all of that knowledge?
        account42 1y ago
        A drunk driver doesn't get to claim that they didn't know someone was in front of their car.
        wkat4242 1y ago
        I'm sure the top leadership was well aware of what happened after the first crash yes. They should have immediately gone public and would have prevented the second crash. Don't forget that hiding MCAS from pilots and the FAA was a conscious decision. It wasn't something that 'just happened'. The decision to not make it depend on redundant AoA sensors by default too. My point is, I can imagine that the MCAS suicidal side-effect was something unexpected (it was a technical failure edge-case in a specific and rare scenario) and I get that not anticipating it could have been a mistake, not a conscious decision. But after the first crash they should have owned up to it and not waited for a second crash.
        rkomorn 1y ago
        And who even cares if they knew? Extenuating circumstances, at best.
        GuinansEyebrows 1y ago
        > Since corporations aren't people, Boeing didn't know anything. you have to recognize that a statement like this means that decision-makers at boeing either knew or were negligent in their duties.
    - mindslight 1y ago
      If the company is a sole proprietorship, you can sue the person who controls it up to bankruptcy, which will affect their personal life significantly. If the company is a corporation/LLC, you can sue the corporate entity up to the bankruptcy of the corporate entity, while the people controlling the company remain unaffected. This gets even more perverse. If you're an individual you actually can't just set up an LLC to limit your own liability. There's no manner for an individual to say "I'm putting on a hat and acting solely as the LLC" - rather as the owner you need to find and employ enough judgement-proof patsies that the whole thing becomes a "group project" and you can say you personally weren't aware of whatever problem gave rise to liability. In other words, the very design of corporations/LLCs encourages avoiding responsibility. You're correct with the nitpick about the Supreme Council's justification, but that justification is still poor reasoning. Corporations are government-created liability shields. How they can direct their employees should be limited, to avoid trampling on those individuals' own natural rights. A person or group of people who want to exercise their personal natural rights through hired employees can always forgo the government-created liability shield and go sole proprietorship / gen partnership.
      - Gormo 1y ago
        > If the company is a sole proprietorship, you can sue the person who controls it up to bankruptcy, which will affect their personal life significantly. I'm sure it will. But how do you collect $30M in damages from a single individual whose entire net worth is e.g. $1M? What if the sole proprietor actually owns no assets whatsoever, because he's set up a bunch of arrangements where he leases everything from third parties, and contracts out his business operations to a different set of third parties, etc.? I don't get why so many people are so intent on trying to attribute the motivations to maximize one's own take, deflect blame for harm away from themselves, and cover up their questionable activities to some specific organizational model. All of those motivations come from the human beings involved -- they were always present and always will be -- and those same human beings will manipulate whatever rules or institutions are involved to the greatest extent that they can. Blaming a particular organizational model for the malicious intentions of the people who are just using that model as a tool is a deep, deep error. > If you're an individual you actually can't just set up an LLC to limit your own liability. What are you talking about? Of course you can. People do it all the time. > rather as the owner you need to find and employ enough judgement-proof patsies that the whole thing becomes a "group project" and you can say you personally weren't aware of whatever problem gave rise to liability. You're conflating entirely unrelated concepts of liability here. Limited liability as it relates to LLCs and corporations is for financial liability. It means that the organizations debts are not the shareholders' debts. It has nothing to do with legal liability for one's own purposeful conduct, whether tortious or criminal. The kind of liability protection that you think corporations enjoy but single-member LLCs don't -- protection from the liability for individual criminal behavior -- does not exist for anyone at all. > A person or group of people who want to exercise their personal natural rights through hired employees can always forgo the government-created liability shield and go sole proprietorship / gen partnership. The ownership structure of a business has nothing at all to do with how it hires employees and directs their activities. The same law of agency and doctrine of vicarious liability applies to all agent-principal relationships regardless of whether the principal is a corporation or a sole proprietorship.
    - cool_man_bob 1y ago
      Unfortunately the company has a big war chest, and I have a small war chest, and was priced out of court through legal shenanigans and delays the corporations lawyers could afford. Just bring back fucking pistol deals. I have a better chance of defending myself there.
  - eichin 1y ago
    Our failure at "corporate alignment" makes it pretty clear that we're also going to fail at any version of "AI alignment"...
    - jononor 1y ago
      The two will likely facilitate eachother :(
  - CyberDildonics 1y ago
    Don't forget paying their way out of crimes and no applicability to three strikes laws.
  - b00ty4breakfast 1y ago
    I remember reading a quote from someone to the effect of "I'll support corporate personhood after I see Texas execute a corporation". I'm definitely misremembering but you get the sentiment, haha
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> a corporation refusing to take responsibility for literally anything. How passe Versus all the natural people at the highest echelons of our political economic system valiantly taking responsibility for fuckall?
- selcuka 1y ago
  > Versus all the natural people We can at least hold them responsible.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > We can at least hold them responsible We don’t. (We can also hold corporations responsible. We seldom do.) The problem isn’t in the form of legal entity fraud and corruption wears.
    - selcuka 1y ago
      Fair enough, but it is much harder to hold a corporation responsible. Jail is a great deterrent for natural persons.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > it is much harder to hold a corporation responsible In some ways, yes. In most ways, no. In most cases, a massive fine aligns interests. Our problem is we've become weak kneed at levying massive fines on corporations. Unlike a person, you don't have to house a corporation to punish it. Your fine simply wipes out the owners. If the enterprise is a going concern, it's born under new ownership. If it's not, its assets are redistributed. > Jail is a great deterrent for natural persons Jail works for executives who defraud. We just, again, don't do it. This AI could have been sold by a billionaire sole proprietor, I doubt that would suddenly make the rules more enforceable.
      - Gormo 1y ago
        Jail is a great deterrent against criminal conduct. But natural persons are already risking jail when they engage in criminal conduct regardless of whether they're doing so within the scope of an organization or doing so on their own initiative. Jail isn't on the table for financial liability or civil torts in the first place, and since pretty much all the forms of liability involving commercial conduct we're discussing here are financial liability or civil torts, it's not really relevant to the discussion.

>...its purpose is to “prioritize safety and awareness through rapid human verification. Oh look, a corporation refusing to take responsibility for literally anything. How passe.

chillingeffect 1y ago

The invention of the corporation is virtually to eliminate responsibility/culpability from any individual. Human car crash? Human punishment. Corporate-owned car crash? A fine which reduces salaries some negligible percent.

perplex3d 1y ago
Yes, corporations have all of the rights of a person, abilities beyond a person, yet few of the responsibilities of a person.
- parineum 1y ago
  They actually don't have all the rights of a person and they do have those same responsibilities. If this company was a sole proprietorship, the only recourse this kid would have is to sue the owner, up to bankruptcy. Since it's a corporation, his recourse is to sue the company, up to bankruptcy. As for corporations having rights, I can explain it further if necessary but the key understanding is that the singular of "corporations are people" is "a corporation is people" not "a corporation is a person".
  - wkat4242 1y ago
    You can't put a corporation in prison. But a person you can. This is one of the big problems. The people making the decisions at corporations are shielded from personal consequences by the corporation. A corporation can be shut down but it rarely happens. Even when Boeing knowingly caused the deaths of hundreds (especially the second crash was entirely preventable if they would have been honest after the first one), all they got were some fines. Those just end up being charged back to their customers, a big one being the government who fined them in the first place.
    - zdragnar 1y ago
      You need a judge and jury for prison sentences for criminal convictions. If the government decides to prosecute the matter as a civil infraction, or doesn't even bother prosecuting but just has an executive agency hand out a fine, that's not a matter of the corporation shielding people, that's a matter of the government failing to prosecute or secure a conviction.
    - parineum 1y ago
      > Even when Boeing knowingly caused the deaths Since corporations aren't people, Boeing didn't know anything. Did someone at Boeing have all of that knowledge?
      - account42 1y ago
        A drunk driver doesn't get to claim that they didn't know someone was in front of their car.
      - wkat4242 1y ago
        I'm sure the top leadership was well aware of what happened after the first crash yes. They should have immediately gone public and would have prevented the second crash. Don't forget that hiding MCAS from pilots and the FAA was a conscious decision. It wasn't something that 'just happened'. The decision to not make it depend on redundant AoA sensors by default too. My point is, I can imagine that the MCAS suicidal side-effect was something unexpected (it was a technical failure edge-case in a specific and rare scenario) and I get that not anticipating it could have been a mistake, not a conscious decision. But after the first crash they should have owned up to it and not waited for a second crash.
        rkomorn 1y ago
        And who even cares if they knew? Extenuating circumstances, at best.
      - GuinansEyebrows 1y ago
        > Since corporations aren't people, Boeing didn't know anything. you have to recognize that a statement like this means that decision-makers at boeing either knew or were negligent in their duties.
  - mindslight 1y ago
    If the company is a sole proprietorship, you can sue the person who controls it up to bankruptcy, which will affect their personal life significantly. If the company is a corporation/LLC, you can sue the corporate entity up to the bankruptcy of the corporate entity, while the people controlling the company remain unaffected. This gets even more perverse. If you're an individual you actually can't just set up an LLC to limit your own liability. There's no manner for an individual to say "I'm putting on a hat and acting solely as the LLC" - rather as the owner you need to find and employ enough judgement-proof patsies that the whole thing becomes a "group project" and you can say you personally weren't aware of whatever problem gave rise to liability. In other words, the very design of corporations/LLCs encourages avoiding responsibility. You're correct with the nitpick about the Supreme Council's justification, but that justification is still poor reasoning. Corporations are government-created liability shields. How they can direct their employees should be limited, to avoid trampling on those individuals' own natural rights. A person or group of people who want to exercise their personal natural rights through hired employees can always forgo the government-created liability shield and go sole proprietorship / gen partnership.
    - Gormo 1y ago
      > If the company is a sole proprietorship, you can sue the person who controls it up to bankruptcy, which will affect their personal life significantly. I'm sure it will. But how do you collect $30M in damages from a single individual whose entire net worth is e.g. $1M? What if the sole proprietor actually owns no assets whatsoever, because he's set up a bunch of arrangements where he leases everything from third parties, and contracts out his business operations to a different set of third parties, etc.? I don't get why so many people are so intent on trying to attribute the motivations to maximize one's own take, deflect blame for harm away from themselves, and cover up their questionable activities to some specific organizational model. All of those motivations come from the human beings involved -- they were always present and always will be -- and those same human beings will manipulate whatever rules or institutions are involved to the greatest extent that they can. Blaming a particular organizational model for the malicious intentions of the people who are just using that model as a tool is a deep, deep error. > If you're an individual you actually can't just set up an LLC to limit your own liability. What are you talking about? Of course you can. People do it all the time. > rather as the owner you need to find and employ enough judgement-proof patsies that the whole thing becomes a "group project" and you can say you personally weren't aware of whatever problem gave rise to liability. You're conflating entirely unrelated concepts of liability here. Limited liability as it relates to LLCs and corporations is for financial liability. It means that the organizations debts are not the shareholders' debts. It has nothing to do with legal liability for one's own purposeful conduct, whether tortious or criminal. The kind of liability protection that you think corporations enjoy but single-member LLCs don't -- protection from the liability for individual criminal behavior -- does not exist for anyone at all. > A person or group of people who want to exercise their personal natural rights through hired employees can always forgo the government-created liability shield and go sole proprietorship / gen partnership. The ownership structure of a business has nothing at all to do with how it hires employees and directs their activities. The same law of agency and doctrine of vicarious liability applies to all agent-principal relationships regardless of whether the principal is a corporation or a sole proprietorship.
  - cool_man_bob 1y ago
    Unfortunately the company has a big war chest, and I have a small war chest, and was priced out of court through legal shenanigans and delays the corporations lawyers could afford. Just bring back fucking pistol deals. I have a better chance of defending myself there.
- eichin 1y ago
  Our failure at "corporate alignment" makes it pretty clear that we're also going to fail at any version of "AI alignment"...
  - jononor 1y ago
    The two will likely facilitate eachother :(
- CyberDildonics 1y ago
  Don't forget paying their way out of crimes and no applicability to three strikes laws.
- b00ty4breakfast 1y ago
  I remember reading a quote from someone to the effect of "I'll support corporate personhood after I see Texas execute a corporation". I'm definitely misremembering but you get the sentiment, haha

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> a corporation refusing to take responsibility for literally anything. How passe Versus all the natural people at the highest echelons of our political economic system valiantly taking responsibility for fuckall?

selcuka 1y ago
> Versus all the natural people We can at least hold them responsible.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > We can at least hold them responsible We don’t. (We can also hold corporations responsible. We seldom do.) The problem isn’t in the form of legal entity fraud and corruption wears.
  - selcuka 1y ago
    Fair enough, but it is much harder to hold a corporation responsible. Jail is a great deterrent for natural persons.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > it is much harder to hold a corporation responsible In some ways, yes. In most ways, no. In most cases, a massive fine aligns interests. Our problem is we've become weak kneed at levying massive fines on corporations. Unlike a person, you don't have to house a corporation to punish it. Your fine simply wipes out the owners. If the enterprise is a going concern, it's born under new ownership. If it's not, its assets are redistributed. > Jail is a great deterrent for natural persons Jail works for executives who defraud. We just, again, don't do it. This AI could have been sold by a billionaire sole proprietor, I doubt that would suddenly make the rules more enforceable.
    - Gormo 1y ago
      Jail is a great deterrent against criminal conduct. But natural persons are already risking jail when they engage in criminal conduct regardless of whether they're doing so within the scope of an organization or doing so on their own initiative. Jail isn't on the table for financial liability or civil torts in the first place, and since pretty much all the forms of liability involving commercial conduct we're discussing here are financial liability or civil torts, it's not really relevant to the discussion.