5 ms·
AI is a liability issue waiting to happen. And this is just another example.
by jqpabc123 7mo ago
AI is a liability issue waiting to happen. And this is just another example.
- garyfirestorm 7mo agoIt’s a tool. Used incorrectly will lead to errors. Just like a hammer, used incorrectly could hit the users finger.
- happytoexplain 7mo agoThere is enormous variability in how hard a tool is to use correctly, how likely it is to go wrong, and how severe the consequences are. AI has a wide range on all those variables because its use cases vary so widely compared to a hammer. The use case here is police facial recognition. Not hitting nails. The parent wasn't saying "AI is a liability" with no context.
- mikkupikku 7mo agoWhen somebody uses a tool to hurt somebody, they need to be held accountable. If I smack you with a hammer, that needs to be prosecuted. Using AI is no different. The problem here is incidental to the tool; it was done by the cops and therefore nobody will be held accountable.
- tovej 7mo agoSystems are also a tool. Whoever institutes and helps build the system that systematically results in harm is also responsible. That would be the vendors, the system planners, and the institutions that greenlit this. It would also include the larger financial tech circle that is trying to drive large scale AI adoption. Like Peter Thiel, who sees technology as an "alternative to politics". I.e. a way to circumvent democracy [1] [1] https://stavroulapabst.substack.com/p/techxgeopolitics-18-technology-as https://stavroulapabst.substack.com/p/techxgeopolitics-18-te...
- fc417fc802 7mo agoNonsense. The manufacturer, distributor, and vendor of a hammer are not liable for its misuse. We already litigated and then legislated this regarding guns in the US. As much as I detest Clearview and Thiel the fault for this incident falls squarely on the justice system.
- tovej 7mo agoYour first paragraph conflates the system with the tool. Please at least parse what I wrote before you respond. You are also conflating legality and morality. The US gun industry being good at lobbying has no bearing on whether an industry that enables mass school shootings is accountable or not. I mean it clearly is. Just compare gun deaths in the US to any civilized nation and you'll see that gun control is the moral and sane approach. A hammer/gun is not the same as the wider hammer/gun industrial system, and the societal systems it is a part of. The justice system is a part of that. So even though you say you disagree, somehow you still agree?
- fc417fc802 7mo ago> Your first paragraph conflates the system with the tool. No, it responds to the claim you made. You asserted that systems are also tools and attributed fault on that basis. Perhaps at least reread your own comment before condescending. > You are also conflating legality and morality. Also incorrect. I understood you to be claiming tool vendors to bear both legal and moral responsibility; perhaps I misunderstood. Regardless, my position is that tool vendors bear neither of those more or less unconditionally. The only way a tool vendor can become responsible in any sense (IMO) is if they knowingly and intentionally facilitate a particular outcome. The manufacturer of a hammer, gun, or AI facial recognition system is never at fault for what the user does with it unless they actively encouraged that particular use.
- tovej 7mo agoThe AI companies are very obviously facilitating particular outcomes.
- suzzer99 7mo agoDynamite is a tool. But we don't hand it out to anyone who wants to play with it.
- mikkupikku 7mo agoWe used to until quite recently. Anybody could buy dynamite at the hardware store. We had to end this because of criminals using it to hurt people.
- jqpabc123 7mo agoLook for AI to follow a similar trajectory over time.
- GaryBluto 7mo agoImpossible at this point. You cannot download dynamite.
- mikkupikku 7mo agoYes, regulation is inevitable.
- jfengel 7mo agoRegulation is impossible. The AI barons literally control the federal government, so not even state regulations get tried.
- jfengel 7mo agoExcept this time the criminals are police.
- AngryData 7mo agoThey are far more often than anyone wants to admit. That's how we got 25% of the world's prison population.
- skeeter2020 7mo agoAI feels closer to a firearm than a hammer when accessing law enforcement's ability to quickly do massive, unrecoverable harm.
- jqpabc123 7mo agoUsed incorrectly will lead to errors. Only one small little problem --- there is no way to tell if you are using it "correctly". The only way to be sure is to not use it. Using it basically boils down to, "Do you feel lucky?". The Fargo police didn't get lucky in this case. And now the liability kicks in.
- jfengel 7mo agoNow the "qualified" immunity kicks in.
- jqpabc123 7mo agoWe will find out. But relying on AI is likely to cost the city of Fargo in one way or another. They say they have already stopped using AI and returned to good old fashioned human investigation. https://www.lawlegalhub.com/how-much-is-a-wrongful-arrest-lawsuit-worth/ https://www.lawlegalhub.com/how-much-is-a-wrongful-arrest-la...
- nkrisc 7mo agoSome basic investigatory police work (the kind they did before AI) would have revealed the mistake before an innocent woman’s life was destroyed.
- jqpabc123 7mo agoYes. But doing the investigation negates much of the incentive for using AI. Look for similar to play out elsewhere --- using unreliable tools for decision making is not a good, responsible business plan. And lawyers are just waiting to press the point.
- bornfreddy 7mo agoAI can provide leads. Someone still needs to verify them and decide.
- 7mo ago
- tgv 7mo agoThis tool, however, is specifically built for mass surveillance. It serves no other purpose. The tool is broken, and everybody knows it. The tool makers are at least as guilty as those who use it.
- cyanydeez 7mo agoThe tool, like Google search, is likely biased towards returning results regardless of confidence.
- fc417fc802 7mo agoThe tool is unethical, not broken. And unfortunately remains legal for the time being. To that end it's a social or political problem that can be fixed.
- MattDaEskimo 7mo agoWhat kind of outcome results from misuse? Clearly a hammer's misuse has very little in common with a global, hivemind network used in high-stake campaigns. Now, if I misused a hammer and it hurt everyone's thumb in my country, then maybe what you said would have some merit. Otherwise, I'd say it's an extremely lazy argument
- hrimfaxi 7mo agoUnlike hammers people preface things with "claude says", etc. I never see that kind of distancing with tools that aren't AI.
- gtowey 7mo agoIt's the opposite, it's absolution from liability. "The AI did it" is the ultimate excuse to avoid accepting responsibility and consequences.
- jqpabc123 7mo agoCourts are already refusing to accept this excuse. https://pub.towardsai.net/the-air-gapped-chronicles-the-court-asked-for-the-llms-reasoning-48471090eada https://pub.towardsai.net/the-air-gapped-chronicles-the-cour...
- gtowey 7mo agoGood to know it's not a fait accompli yet, but I wont be surprised to see corporations pushing for this hard.
- Hizonner 7mo ago... which is why the institutions that assign responsibility and consequences need to make it really clear that excuse won't fly. With illustrative examples.
- xtajv 7mo agoIt occurs to me that software engineering is just about the only engineering field which is neither licensed nor bonded nor insured. I wonder if AI / shadow IT will change that.
- jqpabc123 7mo agoI wonder if AI / shadow IT will change that. I doubt it. Computing has traditionally been all about math and logic. This is really all that a binary logic computer is capable of. When applied to this purpose, it can offer highly accurate results at very low cost. Current AI is an attempt to branch out from simply calculating into decision making. But it does so in the worst possible way --- using probability and statistics (aka guesswork) instead of logic and reasoning. In other words, AI offers questionable results at high cost. As this article shows, relying on guesswork is a legal liability issue waiting to happen in many (if not most) operating environments.
- xtajv 7mo agoHeh, I wasn't suggesting that AI would actually replace decision-making. Rather, I wonder whether attempts to use AI in this way would result in such publicly-embarassing and catastrophic outcomes that software engineers might decide to organize professional guardrails about it. I fully agree, this seems like a legal liability issue waiting to happen.
- jqpabc123 7mo agosoftware engineers might decide to organize professional guardrails about it. Engineering isn't the one creating the liability issue here --- marketing is. And it starts with using the word "intelligence" to describe what an LLM does.