3 ms·
Your bank robbery situation is not apt to OP's question. It's pretty much the opposite situation. OP suggests a situation where the operator is probably using t
by dfxm12 2mo ago
Your bank robbery situation is not apt to OP's question. It's pretty much the opposite situation. OP suggests a situation where the operator is probably using the tool in good faith but the tool appears to be operating in a faulty manner. For some more context, Toyota faced criminal penalties in the US for their unintended acceleration issues back in 2010.
- kmoser 2mo agoOP's scenario specified only "AI Agent" and did not describe how it was trained or what its parameters were supposed to be. You're assuming that the tool was designed such that it couldn't break the law, and therefore if it did, that would be considered faulty behavior, but OP said no such thing. Much rests on whether the user knew, or should have known, whether the tool was capable of actions which could break the law, as well as what steps (if any) the creator of the tool took to ensure the tool was legally compliant, and what warnings they gave to subscribers about possible unintended side-effects. OP specified none of this.
- wbadart 2mo agoSlightly off-topic, but I found it interesting to learn that, in spite of the rulung against Toyota, the issue likely wasn't an engineering fault at the end of the day. Here's Malcolm Gladwell's coverage from his podcast a little while ago: https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/revisionist-history/blame-game https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/revisionist-history/blame-ga...