4 ms·

We say "you shot someone" when you shoot someone with a gun not "you operated a gun manufactured by X which shot someone" because it's understood that it was yo

We say "you shot someone" when you shoot someone with a gun not "you operated a gun manufactured by X which shot someone" because it's understood that it was your decision to pull the trigger not the gun manufacturer's. Similarly we don't blame automobile manufacturers when someone does something stupid with their automobiles--even "self-driving" ones. The situation here is the same. Ultimately if you choose to operate a tool irresponsibly, you should get the blame.

layer8 8mo ago
Nevertheless, weapon and automobile manufacturing is regulated, for good reasons.
- jcgrillo 8mo ago
  That is a good point, we're definitely lacking in regulation (because there isn't any), but those regulations can never account for an irresponsible or malicious user.
  - danudey 8mo ago
    No, but it does disallow irresponsible manufacturers - which AI companies are, right now.
palmotea 8mo ago
> Similarly we don't blame automobile manufacturers when someone does something stupid with their automobiles--even "self-driving" ones. I do. If Tesla sells something called "full self-driving," and someone treats it that way and it kills them by crashing into a wall, I totally blame Tesla for the death.
- jcgrillo 8mo ago
  I agree directionally that Tesla should be held accountable for marketing something called "full self-driving" when it clearly isn't. But ultimately it's the motor vehicle operator's responsibility to keep the vehicle under control regardless of the particulars of how that control system is built. There just isn't any way around that. The buck stops with the operator. Blaming people is how we can control this kind of thing. If we try to blame machines, or companies, it will be uncontrollable.
  - wtallis 8mo ago
    > The buck stops with the operator. The aviation industry has a very different philosophy, and a much better safety record. They don't have as much pressure to lay the blame in a single place, but "bad UI" and "poorly explained/documented assistive feature" are totally valid things to label as the primary cause of fatalities.
    - socialcommenter 8mo ago
      The operator (airline) pays the compensation to the victims in the first instance, right? The label and the consequence go to two different parties, both of whom are responsible in some way. Sounds reasonable.
      - jcgrillo 8mo ago
        The difference is that (mostly) in a deadly airline incident the pilot(s) aren't around to take the blame (or credit!) for their actions. In the case of a computer operator running a computer program irresponsibly, almost always said computer program doesn't kill the operator. We don't require hundreds of hours of training and education to operate a computer. You can just go to the store and buy one, plug it in, and run whatever software you want on it. So there are quite some differences between these scenarios. In my view if you run some program on your computer, you're responsible for the consequences. Nobody else can be. And don't say you didn't know what the program would do--if that's the case you shouldn't have run it in the first place.
stuffn 8mo ago
Moms Demand Action and the Bloomberg troll syndicate would have you believe guns are manufactured to walk out of gun safes and shoot themselves. We have plenty of bad actors in our country seeking to reduce or eliminate fundamental rights through lawfare. The anti gun trolls blame the gun and the manufacturer because their brain is so well rendered into dust by authoritarian socialism they don’t recognize humans as capable actors.
- rfrey 8mo ago
  It's really remarkable to me how a certain subset of American ideologues can look out at the rest of the democratic nations - all of them - and call them authoritarian regimes where the citizens have "dust" for brains. It's particularly poignant nowadays to see any American citizens painting the rest of the western nations as authoritarian.
  - danudey 8mo ago
    Look at those libtard euros! They'll put up with anything their government tells them to - mandated vacation time, sick days, health care, work-life balance. But not me, I'm a FREE THINKER. I have RIGHTS, like the RIGHT to get fired out of nowhere for no reason, or the RIGHT to lose my health insurance if I lose my job. Thank god there are no AUTHORITARIANS here in AMERICA where people are FREE to get SHOT IN THE STREET for DRIVING THEIR CARS or TAKING A PICTURE or BEARING ARMS WHICH IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT BUT THAT ONE GUY DID IT AND DESERVED TO GET MURDERED THIS ONE TIME.
    - socialcommenter 8mo ago
      Really sorry in advance, but I thought this whole HN thread could use a bit of positivity. I turned your satire into a mad-lib and asked AI to fill it in in a happy way. But not me, I’m a dreamer. I have gifts, like the courage to kindle hope, or the patience to lose track of time if I am laughing with friends. Thank god there are no frowns here in this sun-drenched park where people are gathering to get together for picnics or music or stargazing. Have a nice day! (A human posted this)
    - 8mo ago
danudey 8mo ago
We do (distressingly) do this for cars though, to some extent. "A pedestrian was struck by a car" "A car went off the road and hit two children" Really? The car did that? Or maybe a driver went off the road and hit two children and that's who's responsible, not "the car".
- danaris 8mo ago
  Rhetorically, yes. Legally, no. The person driving is considered responsible.

layer8 8mo ago

Nevertheless, weapon and automobile manufacturing is regulated, for good reasons.

jcgrillo 8mo ago
That is a good point, we're definitely lacking in regulation (because there isn't any), but those regulations can never account for an irresponsible or malicious user.
- danudey 8mo ago
  No, but it does disallow irresponsible manufacturers - which AI companies are, right now.

palmotea 8mo ago

> Similarly we don't blame automobile manufacturers when someone does something stupid with their automobiles--even "self-driving" ones. I do. If Tesla sells something called "full self-driving," and someone treats it that way and it kills them by crashing into a wall, I totally blame Tesla for the death.

jcgrillo 8mo ago
I agree directionally that Tesla should be held accountable for marketing something called "full self-driving" when it clearly isn't. But ultimately it's the motor vehicle operator's responsibility to keep the vehicle under control regardless of the particulars of how that control system is built. There just isn't any way around that. The buck stops with the operator. Blaming people is how we can control this kind of thing. If we try to blame machines, or companies, it will be uncontrollable.
- wtallis 8mo ago
  > The buck stops with the operator. The aviation industry has a very different philosophy, and a much better safety record. They don't have as much pressure to lay the blame in a single place, but "bad UI" and "poorly explained/documented assistive feature" are totally valid things to label as the primary cause of fatalities.
  - socialcommenter 8mo ago
    The operator (airline) pays the compensation to the victims in the first instance, right? The label and the consequence go to two different parties, both of whom are responsible in some way. Sounds reasonable.
    - jcgrillo 8mo ago
      The difference is that (mostly) in a deadly airline incident the pilot(s) aren't around to take the blame (or credit!) for their actions. In the case of a computer operator running a computer program irresponsibly, almost always said computer program doesn't kill the operator. We don't require hundreds of hours of training and education to operate a computer. You can just go to the store and buy one, plug it in, and run whatever software you want on it. So there are quite some differences between these scenarios. In my view if you run some program on your computer, you're responsible for the consequences. Nobody else can be. And don't say you didn't know what the program would do--if that's the case you shouldn't have run it in the first place.

stuffn 8mo ago

Moms Demand Action and the Bloomberg troll syndicate would have you believe guns are manufactured to walk out of gun safes and shoot themselves. We have plenty of bad actors in our country seeking to reduce or eliminate fundamental rights through lawfare. The anti gun trolls blame the gun and the manufacturer because their brain is so well rendered into dust by authoritarian socialism they don’t recognize humans as capable actors.

rfrey 8mo ago
It's really remarkable to me how a certain subset of American ideologues can look out at the rest of the democratic nations - all of them - and call them authoritarian regimes where the citizens have "dust" for brains. It's particularly poignant nowadays to see any American citizens painting the rest of the western nations as authoritarian.
- danudey 8mo ago
  Look at those libtard euros! They'll put up with anything their government tells them to - mandated vacation time, sick days, health care, work-life balance. But not me, I'm a FREE THINKER. I have RIGHTS, like the RIGHT to get fired out of nowhere for no reason, or the RIGHT to lose my health insurance if I lose my job. Thank god there are no AUTHORITARIANS here in AMERICA where people are FREE to get SHOT IN THE STREET for DRIVING THEIR CARS or TAKING A PICTURE or BEARING ARMS WHICH IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT BUT THAT ONE GUY DID IT AND DESERVED TO GET MURDERED THIS ONE TIME.
  - socialcommenter 8mo ago
    Really sorry in advance, but I thought this whole HN thread could use a bit of positivity. I turned your satire into a mad-lib and asked AI to fill it in in a happy way. But not me, I’m a dreamer. I have gifts, like the courage to kindle hope, or the patience to lose track of time if I am laughing with friends. Thank god there are no frowns here in this sun-drenched park where people are gathering to get together for picnics or music or stargazing. Have a nice day! (A human posted this)
  - 8mo ago

danudey 8mo ago

We do (distressingly) do this for cars though, to some extent. "A pedestrian was struck by a car" "A car went off the road and hit two children" Really? The car did that? Or maybe a driver went off the road and hit two children and that's who's responsible, not "the car".

danaris 8mo ago
Rhetorically, yes. Legally, no. The person driving is considered responsible.