3 ms·

>Person wielding AI, as with any other tools, is responsible for all of its actions. Otherwise, it’s just a psyop for more AI regulation, ban open source, etc…

by gruez 2mo ago

>Person wielding AI, as with any other tools, is responsible for all of its actions. Otherwise, it’s just a psyop for more AI regulation, ban open source, etc… Just my 2 cents. But some tools (guns) are regulated.

IcyWindows 2mo ago
People have caused lots of damage with bulldozers.
- bgun 2mo ago
  If your point is that we should regulate AI as least as strictly as industrial vehicles, I agree.
  - esikich 2mo ago
    Afaik anyone can buy a bulldozer. Whether or not you are licensed to operate it is a different story, but there's nothing stopping you short of your conscience.
    - mcv 2mo ago
      Licensed or not, you're fully liable for any damage you do with it. And possibly go to prison. I'd like to see crime committed by AI held to the same standards as crimes committed with any other tool.
      - hnfong 2mo ago
        I don't think the law makes a distinction over what tool you use to commit a crime. The problem with AI is that the AI might do something that would constitute a crime (eg. attempting to land malicious code via a PR), but the general legal standard to convict a person of a crime is malicious intent (or sometimes negligence). If the human user instructs the AI to do X and the AI does X by committing crimes in the process, the prosecution usually has to prove the human intended this to happen (or is somehow criminally negligent). For traditional tools, the user has much greater control over the tool so the intention can be more easily deduced from the results. For AI, at least for now, results can be wild. I don't think the legal system is prepared to put people in prison because their AI randomly ran amok after being given an innocuous prompt. This is analogous to holding a driver criminally liable for harming people due to a serious malfunction of the vehicle. If anything, I think more liability should be imposed on AI developers.
        wongarsu 2mo ago
        I'd assume that after some number of news stories about AI agents committing crimes, the threshold for criminal negligence should be easy to reach for anyone who doesn't take proper precautions A lot of negligence is of the "the last 30 times nothing went wrong" type, and the dangers are increasingly well known
        hnfong 2mo ago
        I generally agree. But the field is evolving too fast for the legal system. I'd imagine regulation and enforcement will come when things are starting to settle down. The analogies with vehicles being inherently dangerous and require extra regulation are apt, because safety measures (eg. speed limits, seat belts, comprehensive road safety rules etc.) were implemented bit by bit, but way after the cars had been invented...
        mcv 2mo ago
        > I don't think the law makes a distinction over what tool you use to commit a crime. The law might not, but enforcement definitely does. Crimes committed through a corporation are often ignored.
        hnfong 2mo ago
        Yeah. Though, this is a broader issue of capitalism giving corporations preferential treatment...
- Zecc 2mo ago
  And? Are you suggesting the driving of bulldozers shouldn't be regulated?
  - themaninthedark 2mo ago
    It's not. Nor are tractors, excavators or a myriad of other heavy equipment. I saw upthread someone saying that manufactures should be liable if someone uses their products to cause harm. While emotionally this might make us feel good w.r.t. Guns, think about that when carried over to other industries. Someone got hit, sue Ford. They didn't put in enough sensors to detect pedestrians and auto brake. Someone hacked, sue Microsoft. They didn't do enough to detect malice action. Someone 3D printed a gun and used it? Sue Bamboo, they didn't stop someone from printing illegal guns... oh wait already reaching this step.
blagie 2mo ago
Personally, I think gun companies should be liable for any harm done by their products as well. We want rule-of-law, and in the US, people should have an absolute right to bare arms, as in the second amendment. Free market forces can then determine appropriate prices, insurance, and protective measures to make sure those guns are managed safely. If I want an F35 and an Abrams, that's okay, so long as Lockheed and General Dynamics are willing to sign off (with full liability for damages) that I'm managing them safely. Free markets work pretty well with: a) Full transparency, as needed for rational decision-making b) No way to externalize costs
- CoastalCoder 2mo ago
  A bit of a tangent, but I never understood the legal reasoning for how (states having the right of well-regulated militias) implies (individuals having the right for private ownership of arms).
  - blagie 2mo ago
    That's not quite what it says. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 1. The reason is well-regulated militias, but the right is of the people. 2. The militia isn't a state apparatus. Indeed, the goal of the militia is to enable a rebellion if the state is no longer free. Now, here again, "well regulated" gives plenty of leeway. For example, one might argue that the following scheme fits: 1. I can have whatever arms I want, including an F35 2. The F35 lives with a militia, which is well-regulated. I can use it in trainings there. I don't think one could argue the militia could be under state control (that defeats the purpose!), but one could easily argue that it could be well-enough regulated that the current far-right extremist groups would not fit. The concept was a group of citizens under e.g. a town / city council. That's obviously not where case law went, but in an alternative reality, it very well might have.
    - wongarsu 2mo ago
      Other viable readings: 3. the militia is supposed to be under state control and its purpose is to keep the state free, aka prevent overreach of the federal government 4. The "well regulated militia" is the motivation, not the right. That makes the "well regulated" part irrelevant and there is no basis for any regulation of arms One would mean any effective state milita should have some F35, the other means you can have one personally

by gruez 2mo ago

IcyWindows 2mo ago

People have caused lots of damage with bulldozers.

bgun 2mo ago
If your point is that we should regulate AI as least as strictly as industrial vehicles, I agree.
- esikich 2mo ago
  Afaik anyone can buy a bulldozer. Whether or not you are licensed to operate it is a different story, but there's nothing stopping you short of your conscience.
  - mcv 2mo ago
    Licensed or not, you're fully liable for any damage you do with it. And possibly go to prison. I'd like to see crime committed by AI held to the same standards as crimes committed with any other tool.
    - hnfong 2mo ago
      I don't think the law makes a distinction over what tool you use to commit a crime. The problem with AI is that the AI might do something that would constitute a crime (eg. attempting to land malicious code via a PR), but the general legal standard to convict a person of a crime is malicious intent (or sometimes negligence). If the human user instructs the AI to do X and the AI does X by committing crimes in the process, the prosecution usually has to prove the human intended this to happen (or is somehow criminally negligent). For traditional tools, the user has much greater control over the tool so the intention can be more easily deduced from the results. For AI, at least for now, results can be wild. I don't think the legal system is prepared to put people in prison because their AI randomly ran amok after being given an innocuous prompt. This is analogous to holding a driver criminally liable for harming people due to a serious malfunction of the vehicle. If anything, I think more liability should be imposed on AI developers.
      - wongarsu 2mo ago
        I'd assume that after some number of news stories about AI agents committing crimes, the threshold for criminal negligence should be easy to reach for anyone who doesn't take proper precautions A lot of negligence is of the "the last 30 times nothing went wrong" type, and the dangers are increasingly well known
        hnfong 2mo ago
        I generally agree. But the field is evolving too fast for the legal system. I'd imagine regulation and enforcement will come when things are starting to settle down. The analogies with vehicles being inherently dangerous and require extra regulation are apt, because safety measures (eg. speed limits, seat belts, comprehensive road safety rules etc.) were implemented bit by bit, but way after the cars had been invented...
      - mcv 2mo ago
        > I don't think the law makes a distinction over what tool you use to commit a crime. The law might not, but enforcement definitely does. Crimes committed through a corporation are often ignored.
        hnfong 2mo ago
        Yeah. Though, this is a broader issue of capitalism giving corporations preferential treatment...
Zecc 2mo ago
And? Are you suggesting the driving of bulldozers shouldn't be regulated?
- themaninthedark 2mo ago
  It's not. Nor are tractors, excavators or a myriad of other heavy equipment. I saw upthread someone saying that manufactures should be liable if someone uses their products to cause harm. While emotionally this might make us feel good w.r.t. Guns, think about that when carried over to other industries. Someone got hit, sue Ford. They didn't put in enough sensors to detect pedestrians and auto brake. Someone hacked, sue Microsoft. They didn't do enough to detect malice action. Someone 3D printed a gun and used it? Sue Bamboo, they didn't stop someone from printing illegal guns... oh wait already reaching this step.

blagie 2mo ago

Personally, I think gun companies should be liable for any harm done by their products as well. We want rule-of-law, and in the US, people should have an absolute right to bare arms, as in the second amendment. Free market forces can then determine appropriate prices, insurance, and protective measures to make sure those guns are managed safely. If I want an F35 and an Abrams, that's okay, so long as Lockheed and General Dynamics are willing to sign off (with full liability for damages) that I'm managing them safely. Free markets work pretty well with: a) Full transparency, as needed for rational decision-making b) No way to externalize costs

CoastalCoder 2mo ago
A bit of a tangent, but I never understood the legal reasoning for how (states having the right of well-regulated militias) implies (individuals having the right for private ownership of arms).
- blagie 2mo ago
  That's not quite what it says. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 1. The reason is well-regulated militias, but the right is of the people. 2. The militia isn't a state apparatus. Indeed, the goal of the militia is to enable a rebellion if the state is no longer free. Now, here again, "well regulated" gives plenty of leeway. For example, one might argue that the following scheme fits: 1. I can have whatever arms I want, including an F35 2. The F35 lives with a militia, which is well-regulated. I can use it in trainings there. I don't think one could argue the militia could be under state control (that defeats the purpose!), but one could easily argue that it could be well-enough regulated that the current far-right extremist groups would not fit. The concept was a group of citizens under e.g. a town / city council. That's obviously not where case law went, but in an alternative reality, it very well might have.
  - wongarsu 2mo ago
    Other viable readings: 3. the militia is supposed to be under state control and its purpose is to keep the state free, aka prevent overreach of the federal government 4. The "well regulated militia" is the motivation, not the right. That makes the "well regulated" part irrelevant and there is no basis for any regulation of arms One would mean any effective state milita should have some F35, the other means you can have one personally