2 ms·

I don’t understand the point of the law. AI tech is inherently not predictable. Users know this. I don’t see how creating this liability keeps AI based products

I don’t understand the point of the law. AI tech is inherently not predictable. Users know this. I don’t see how creating this liability keeps AI based products viable.

WCSTombs 10mo ago
And I think most people would agree that an inherently unpredictable component has no place in a safety-critical system or anywhere that potential liability would be huge. AI-based products can still be viable for the exact same reason that an ocean of shitty bug-riddled software is commercially viable today, because there are many potential applications where absolute correctness is not a hard requirement for success.
skybrian 10mo ago
It sounds like you might be under the impression that it's a pro-AI industry law that's intended to reduce liability? It's not. It's more like saying that if the zoo animals get out and hurt someone, it's not a defense that to say that they're wild animals. Sure, monkeys can be pretty clever, but the zoo has a responsibility to protect the public. (I think AI characters are more like ghosts than animals, but it's a similar principle.)
TimorousBestie 10mo ago
The novel _Endymion_ imagines a “Schrödinger’s Catbox”: a sealed studio apartment with a radioactive sample hooked up to a geiger counter hooked up to a quantity of cyanide gas. So it randomly kills its occupant. The need for the box is premised on the argument that whoever sticks someone in the catbox isn’t actually guilty of murder. The primary cause is the random decay of the radioactive sample. This is, of course, sophistry. But it illustrates how easily a can convince oneself that the presence of a random element waters down ethical responsibility. Particularly if there’s a financial or political incentive driving the desire for absolution of blame.

2 ms·

I don’t understand the point of the law. AI tech is inherently not predictable. Users know this. I don’t see how creating this liability keeps AI based products

by SilverElfin 10mo ago

I don’t understand the point of the law. AI tech is inherently not predictable. Users know this. I don’t see how creating this liability keeps AI based products viable.

WCSTombs 10mo ago
And I think most people would agree that an inherently unpredictable component has no place in a safety-critical system or anywhere that potential liability would be huge. AI-based products can still be viable for the exact same reason that an ocean of shitty bug-riddled software is commercially viable today, because there are many potential applications where absolute correctness is not a hard requirement for success.
skybrian 10mo ago
It sounds like you might be under the impression that it's a pro-AI industry law that's intended to reduce liability? It's not. It's more like saying that if the zoo animals get out and hurt someone, it's not a defense that to say that they're wild animals. Sure, monkeys can be pretty clever, but the zoo has a responsibility to protect the public. (I think AI characters are more like ghosts than animals, but it's a similar principle.)
TimorousBestie 10mo ago
The novel _Endymion_ imagines a “Schrödinger’s Catbox”: a sealed studio apartment with a radioactive sample hooked up to a geiger counter hooked up to a quantity of cyanide gas. So it randomly kills its occupant. The need for the box is premised on the argument that whoever sticks someone in the catbox isn’t actually guilty of murder. The primary cause is the random decay of the radioactive sample. This is, of course, sophistry. But it illustrates how easily a can convince oneself that the presence of a random element waters down ethical responsibility. Particularly if there’s a financial or political incentive driving the desire for absolution of blame.