3 ms·

lol, uh, I'm pretty sure they actually can't. You or a business with legal owners can have a bank account, and you can give access to that account to an agent,

by wcarss 8mo ago

lol, uh, I'm pretty sure they actually can't. You or a business with legal owners can have a bank account, and you can give access to that account to an agent, but real banks work in the real world, and "know your customer" regulations need a real person somewhere in the chain. But, hey, maybe I'm wrong.

kotaKat 8mo ago
It's OK because one of the AIs paid off the AI pretending to be the government regulator, I guess?
hydrogen7800 8mo ago
I wish I could properly cite it, but one of my favorite HN comments recently was, to paraphrase, "thing, but from the Internet". Which is to say that old rules don't apply, for some reason.
arshbot 8mo ago
An agent could open this bank account if you prefer to give it access to your social, passport, etc - entirely up to the individual's risk profile. Liability always follows the human as has been the case with all tools, motor vehicles, and pets.
- fc417fc802 8mo ago
  Things are going to get weird when the automatons become sophisticated enough to pull off identity theft while unsupervised. Putting a brick on the gas pedal is obviously negligent. Whereas it is not so obvious that running a random script from github that spins up an agent with access to your home folder could lead to real world financial crimes. Truly a strange world we're headed for.
  - arshbot 8mo ago
    > Whereas it is not so obvious that running a random script from github that spins up an agent with access to your home folder could lead to real world financial crimes. disagree, and the courts will likely take this position as well. ignorance has never been a defensible strategy to avoid liability. pick up a detonator, it's up to you to understand where the bombs are positions what's in the blast range.
    - fc417fc802 8mo ago
      I didn't say "liable" I said "negligent". Anyway that's clearly not true in the general case. For example, if you didn't realize that the button was a detonator to begin with.
      - arshbot 8mo ago
        your "negligence" on understanding the ramifications of pushing the "button" resulted in your "liability". Reframed so maybe you'd better understand the relationship between these concepts. This isn't cutting edge precedent!
        fc417fc802 8mo ago
        Again, I never used the term "liable". You introduced that. I spoke of criminal negligence. And I don't believe your claim of liability generalizes. If someone else set up the detonator and then I pushed the button without realizing what it was I don't believe I'd be liable. The party that set it up might be, but it gets really complicated and messy because it depends on the specific circumstances of all involved parties. If A sets it up in a manner believed to be safe, B moves something in good faith which unintentionally makes things unsafe, and then C comes along and triggers it without realizing, you might well end up with a situation where no one is considered liable.

by wcarss 8mo ago

kotaKat 8mo ago

It's OK because one of the AIs paid off the AI pretending to be the government regulator, I guess?

hydrogen7800 8mo ago

I wish I could properly cite it, but one of my favorite HN comments recently was, to paraphrase, "thing, but from the Internet". Which is to say that old rules don't apply, for some reason.

arshbot 8mo ago

An agent could open this bank account if you prefer to give it access to your social, passport, etc - entirely up to the individual's risk profile. Liability always follows the human as has been the case with all tools, motor vehicles, and pets.

fc417fc802 8mo ago
Things are going to get weird when the automatons become sophisticated enough to pull off identity theft while unsupervised. Putting a brick on the gas pedal is obviously negligent. Whereas it is not so obvious that running a random script from github that spins up an agent with access to your home folder could lead to real world financial crimes. Truly a strange world we're headed for.
- arshbot 8mo ago
  > Whereas it is not so obvious that running a random script from github that spins up an agent with access to your home folder could lead to real world financial crimes. disagree, and the courts will likely take this position as well. ignorance has never been a defensible strategy to avoid liability. pick up a detonator, it's up to you to understand where the bombs are positions what's in the blast range.
  - fc417fc802 8mo ago
    I didn't say "liable" I said "negligent". Anyway that's clearly not true in the general case. For example, if you didn't realize that the button was a detonator to begin with.
    - arshbot 8mo ago
      your "negligence" on understanding the ramifications of pushing the "button" resulted in your "liability". Reframed so maybe you'd better understand the relationship between these concepts. This isn't cutting edge precedent!
      - fc417fc802 8mo ago
        Again, I never used the term "liable". You introduced that. I spoke of criminal negligence. And I don't believe your claim of liability generalizes. If someone else set up the detonator and then I pushed the button without realizing what it was I don't believe I'd be liable. The party that set it up might be, but it gets really complicated and messy because it depends on the specific circumstances of all involved parties. If A sets it up in a manner believed to be safe, B moves something in good faith which unintentionally makes things unsafe, and then C comes along and triggers it without realizing, you might well end up with a situation where no one is considered liable.