4 ms·

> 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.
  • scotty79 1y ago
    It's probably just US culture of "if you aren't cheating you aren't trying to win hard enough".
• Gormo 1y ago
  You can try, but you might be unknowingly holding their carefully designated scapegoat responsible instead.