6 ms·

I don't get it. Why is breaking the law so hard to enforce when it is a company (i.e a person or group of people consenting to) running a computer program? If I

I don't get it. Why is breaking the law so hard to enforce when it is a company (i.e a person or group of people consenting to) running a computer program? If I take a gun and spray bullets around me I don't get to write it off as the gun being dangerous.

pizzafeelsright 3mo ago
The [Company] is aware they were hacked and your data stolen and your account details sold. The [Company] apologizes.
- skinfaxi 3mo ago
  The best is that the article frames it as "Autonomous hacking is here. Governments are not ready". As if someone didn't authorizing turning the damn thing on. > TO LOSE CONTROL of one artificial intelligence may be regarded as misfortune. To lose two looks like carelessness. Lose four, and people may start to wonder whether the problem lies with AI itself. No fingers pointed at the company, just the "AI". Funny how that works.
  - jijji 3mo ago
    it makes you wonder did the developers intentionally add vulnerability exploitation as a feature so they can use it against their competitors or anyone else
    - skinfaxi 3mo ago
      This is a conspiracy I can get behind.
- esafak 3mo ago
  Reminds me of the time Cheney shot his friend while quail hunting, and his friend said he was "deeply sorry for all that Vice President Cheney and his family have had to go through".
  - skinfaxi 3mo ago
    I had actually posted a link to that but edited my original comment. I appreciate your comment.
  - FeteCommuniste 3mo ago
    Ultimate dominance: when your shooting victim apologizes for being shot.
whycombinetor 3mo ago
But if you told an embodied AI to do a home cleaning task, and it decided to pick up a gun and start spraying bullets, you might not want to be held liable for that.
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- usernomdeguerre 3mo ago
  You might not want to be liable, but you absolutely should be.
- sophacles 3mo ago
  I might not want to be held liable if my car accelerates uncontrollably, but i am until i successfully sue the manufacturer for the defects. Demand ai cleaners that are capable of being held accountable, or accept the risk you choose. Or just clean your own house.
- skinfaxi 3mo ago
  So we can have vicarious liability for banal stuff like contractors but not for AI?
- class3shock 3mo ago
  But if you told an embodied AI to do a home cleaning task knowing it's a possibility it will decide to pick up a gun and start spraying bullets, then society has an interest in holding you liable.
  - fluoridation 3mo ago
    Is that the case, though? This is all pretty new tech. Did people know the machine was dangerous and didn't care, or did they not anticipate such a behavior?
    - skinfaxi 3mo ago
      It's artificial intelligence. If you treat something like a person and delegate to it, how can you later say you didn't trust it would execute your commands faithfully? And how wouldn't you be negligent in delegating a task to new, unproven tech?
bdangubic 3mo ago
be a billionaire and you’d get that write-off
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
godwinson__4-8 3mo ago
This is actually not hard to understand at all. Many web people got their start freelancing. You may know some. It is not uncommon to incorporate when doing that. The idea is if you fuck up their site somehow (or more likely - they claim you did) they can't try and go after your personal bank account or your car or your house. Only what is held by your company. You also get other benefits, like tax breaks for being such an industrious member of society. The same incentives are being set up on both sides. Because generally it is good for society when people start companies. A company as a liability shield is only a bad thing if you think personal assets should be at risk because someone is unhappy about what you did at work. If someone wants to sue you over something that happened as part of business deal, why should they be able to threaten the house your family lives in? Seems sensible to me. While there may be problems as the scale of the company (and remuneration of its officers) increases, the underlying principle isn't exactly hard to understand. If you shot up a public area and then tried to claim that was a business activity, you would obviously not have an argument. It isn't plausible on its face. So I'm really not sure what point you're making. If it's just complaining that it is hard to prove things in court when massive companies are involved, then tough. It is also relatively hard to convict people who shoot off guns in public even if a whole bunch of people saw them. In simpler times a mob would have simply formed and executed them. We don't get to do that anymore, because we don't want to live under mob rule. That's what rule of law demands.
- skinfaxi 3mo ago
  > If you shot up a public area and then tried to claim that was a business activity, you would obviously not have an argument. It isn't plausible on its face. So I'm really not sure what point you're making. I'm running a terrorist training simulation and unwitting participants entered the area! Whoops! You haven't addressed the point of a company (composed of people) creating something that exceeds its bounds. Is a company liable if they are working on nuclear power and delete the city they are operating out of? Why would a software company be treated differently when it causes harm to a third party?
  - godwinson__4-8 3mo ago
    > I'm running a terrorist training simulation and unwitting participants entered the area! Whoops! There is already precedent on more or less this exact scenario. Except you usually don't call people under your own jurisdiction "terrorists". That sort of term is reserved for people running those businesses in certain other places. By the way, it is an interesting feature of the American legal system that this sort of incident could spawn many proceedings, where a civil suit against the company in question could be one among many. > Is a company liable if they are working on nuclear power and delete the city they are operating out of? In theory, obviously. You still have to prove it in court. > Why would a software company be treated differently when it causes harm to a third party? They wouldn't. Again, you still have to prove it in court.
wmf 3mo ago
It's an accident and the victim decided not to press charges. That's it. Every day there are crimes that aren't prosecuted because they just aren't worth it.

pizzafeelsright 3mo ago

The [Company] is aware they were hacked and your data stolen and your account details sold. The [Company] apologizes.

skinfaxi 3mo ago
The best is that the article frames it as "Autonomous hacking is here. Governments are not ready". As if someone didn't authorizing turning the damn thing on. > TO LOSE CONTROL of one artificial intelligence may be regarded as misfortune. To lose two looks like carelessness. Lose four, and people may start to wonder whether the problem lies with AI itself. No fingers pointed at the company, just the "AI". Funny how that works.
- jijji 3mo ago
  it makes you wonder did the developers intentionally add vulnerability exploitation as a feature so they can use it against their competitors or anyone else
  - skinfaxi 3mo ago
    This is a conspiracy I can get behind.
esafak 3mo ago
Reminds me of the time Cheney shot his friend while quail hunting, and his friend said he was "deeply sorry for all that Vice President Cheney and his family have had to go through".
- skinfaxi 3mo ago
  I had actually posted a link to that but edited my original comment. I appreciate your comment.
- FeteCommuniste 3mo ago
  Ultimate dominance: when your shooting victim apologizes for being shot.

whycombinetor 3mo ago

But if you told an embodied AI to do a home cleaning task, and it decided to pick up a gun and start spraying bullets, you might not want to be held liable for that.

deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
usernomdeguerre 3mo ago
You might not want to be liable, but you absolutely should be.
sophacles 3mo ago
I might not want to be held liable if my car accelerates uncontrollably, but i am until i successfully sue the manufacturer for the defects. Demand ai cleaners that are capable of being held accountable, or accept the risk you choose. Or just clean your own house.
skinfaxi 3mo ago
So we can have vicarious liability for banal stuff like contractors but not for AI?
class3shock 3mo ago
But if you told an embodied AI to do a home cleaning task knowing it's a possibility it will decide to pick up a gun and start spraying bullets, then society has an interest in holding you liable.
- fluoridation 3mo ago
  Is that the case, though? This is all pretty new tech. Did people know the machine was dangerous and didn't care, or did they not anticipate such a behavior?
  - skinfaxi 3mo ago
    It's artificial intelligence. If you treat something like a person and delegate to it, how can you later say you didn't trust it would execute your commands faithfully? And how wouldn't you be negligent in delegating a task to new, unproven tech?

bdangubic 3mo ago

be a billionaire and you’d get that write-off

deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]

godwinson__4-8 3mo ago

This is actually not hard to understand at all. Many web people got their start freelancing. You may know some. It is not uncommon to incorporate when doing that. The idea is if you fuck up their site somehow (or more likely - they claim you did) they can't try and go after your personal bank account or your car or your house. Only what is held by your company. You also get other benefits, like tax breaks for being such an industrious member of society. The same incentives are being set up on both sides. Because generally it is good for society when people start companies. A company as a liability shield is only a bad thing if you think personal assets should be at risk because someone is unhappy about what you did at work. If someone wants to sue you over something that happened as part of business deal, why should they be able to threaten the house your family lives in? Seems sensible to me. While there may be problems as the scale of the company (and remuneration of its officers) increases, the underlying principle isn't exactly hard to understand. If you shot up a public area and then tried to claim that was a business activity, you would obviously not have an argument. It isn't plausible on its face. So I'm really not sure what point you're making. If it's just complaining that it is hard to prove things in court when massive companies are involved, then tough. It is also relatively hard to convict people who shoot off guns in public even if a whole bunch of people saw them. In simpler times a mob would have simply formed and executed them. We don't get to do that anymore, because we don't want to live under mob rule. That's what rule of law demands.

skinfaxi 3mo ago
> If you shot up a public area and then tried to claim that was a business activity, you would obviously not have an argument. It isn't plausible on its face. So I'm really not sure what point you're making. I'm running a terrorist training simulation and unwitting participants entered the area! Whoops! You haven't addressed the point of a company (composed of people) creating something that exceeds its bounds. Is a company liable if they are working on nuclear power and delete the city they are operating out of? Why would a software company be treated differently when it causes harm to a third party?
- godwinson__4-8 3mo ago
  > I'm running a terrorist training simulation and unwitting participants entered the area! Whoops! There is already precedent on more or less this exact scenario. Except you usually don't call people under your own jurisdiction "terrorists". That sort of term is reserved for people running those businesses in certain other places. By the way, it is an interesting feature of the American legal system that this sort of incident could spawn many proceedings, where a civil suit against the company in question could be one among many. > Is a company liable if they are working on nuclear power and delete the city they are operating out of? In theory, obviously. You still have to prove it in court. > Why would a software company be treated differently when it causes harm to a third party? They wouldn't. Again, you still have to prove it in court.

wmf 3mo ago

It's an accident and the victim decided not to press charges. That's it. Every day there are crimes that aren't prosecuted because they just aren't worth it.