3 ms·

The difference is humans can be held accountable. An AI cannot.

newsomix9xl 2mo ago
That's not true. Humans write AI, and humans can held responsible for writing bad software. And corporations already create fictions that are held accountable in lieu of peoples private assets. So, I disagree.
- andsoitis 2mo ago
  As long as some human or group of humans are above the AI that runs the company and can be held accountable, I'm fine with it. But if the idea is that an AI runs the company and there is no human ultimately accountable for the AI, then that is very very dangerous.
  - warkdarrior 2mo ago
    And how are you going to prevent an AI-managed company? I'm working on the software stack for that, so it'd be useful to think through options.
    - ThrowawayR2 2mo ago
      Is there a jurisdiction anywhere in the civilized world that doesn't legally require "natural persons" (legal jargon for a flesh and blood human being) to fill the positions for corporate officers? Those corporate officers can face civil and criminal liability for any wrongdoing even if they are merely meat proxies executing the commands of an AI. Even if some group of fools were willing to sign up blindly to be corporate officers, they would probably betray the mastermind at the first sign of legal trouble.
    - andsoitis 2mo ago
      > And how are you going to prevent an AI-managed company? Be one of the voices that explain the danger in handing over control to non-humans. Vote for politicians who understand the danger and who I think will fight it.
  - debazel 2mo ago
    Is it really anymore dangerous than having minimum wage workers serving as fall guys for approving prompts they have no understanding over?
eviks 2mo ago
"A corporation cannot" didn't stop legal birth of those
- andsoitis 2mo ago
  > "A corporation cannot" didn't stop legal birth of those In a corporation, the humans running it can be punished. An AI cannot be punished.
  - PunchyHamster 2mo ago
    LLCs were invented precisely to go around that in most cases
    - andsoitis 2mo ago
      Not for the most important things, like murdering people, fraud, etc. Executives are prosecuted for these kinds of things and the mere fact that it can happen shapes their behavior. An AI cannot be punished at all. So they will not behave with that in mind.
      - anigbrowl 2mo ago
        I am sick of this 'just so' logic. I could equally argue that AIs are not driven by greed, sexual appetites, revenge, etc., making them considerably more trustworthy than wealthy sociopaths. It's already noteworthy when a very wealthy or politically powerful person is abruptly disempowered, even more so when they end up losing their personal liberty or life. I put it to you that's it's noteworthy because it is such a rare event, even though there are a lot of very well-reourced sociopaths.
        andsoitis 2mo ago
        > I could equally argue that AIs are not driven by greed, sexual appetites, revenge, etc., making them considerably more trustworthy than wealthy sociopaths. Imagine the consequences of trusting thousands of entities that each far exceed human intelligence, have agency, can cooperate, but have no feelings.
narrator 2mo ago
The difference is AI has no time preference. Even the most determined anti-social person does not like having his time wasted. AI can sit there waiting for your prompt for a billion years and not care.

That's not true. Humans write AI, and humans can held responsible for writing bad software. And corporations already create fictions that are held accountable in lieu of peoples private assets. So, I disagree.

andsoitis 2mo ago
As long as some human or group of humans are above the AI that runs the company and can be held accountable, I'm fine with it. But if the idea is that an AI runs the company and there is no human ultimately accountable for the AI, then that is very very dangerous.
- warkdarrior 2mo ago
  And how are you going to prevent an AI-managed company? I'm working on the software stack for that, so it'd be useful to think through options.
  - ThrowawayR2 2mo ago
    Is there a jurisdiction anywhere in the civilized world that doesn't legally require "natural persons" (legal jargon for a flesh and blood human being) to fill the positions for corporate officers? Those corporate officers can face civil and criminal liability for any wrongdoing even if they are merely meat proxies executing the commands of an AI. Even if some group of fools were willing to sign up blindly to be corporate officers, they would probably betray the mastermind at the first sign of legal trouble.
  - andsoitis 2mo ago
    > And how are you going to prevent an AI-managed company? Be one of the voices that explain the danger in handing over control to non-humans. Vote for politicians who understand the danger and who I think will fight it.
- debazel 2mo ago
  Is it really anymore dangerous than having minimum wage workers serving as fall guys for approving prompts they have no understanding over?

eviks 2mo ago

"A corporation cannot" didn't stop legal birth of those

andsoitis 2mo ago
> "A corporation cannot" didn't stop legal birth of those In a corporation, the humans running it can be punished. An AI cannot be punished.
- PunchyHamster 2mo ago
  LLCs were invented precisely to go around that in most cases
  - andsoitis 2mo ago
    Not for the most important things, like murdering people, fraud, etc. Executives are prosecuted for these kinds of things and the mere fact that it can happen shapes their behavior. An AI cannot be punished at all. So they will not behave with that in mind.
    - anigbrowl 2mo ago
      I am sick of this 'just so' logic. I could equally argue that AIs are not driven by greed, sexual appetites, revenge, etc., making them considerably more trustworthy than wealthy sociopaths. It's already noteworthy when a very wealthy or politically powerful person is abruptly disempowered, even more so when they end up losing their personal liberty or life. I put it to you that's it's noteworthy because it is such a rare event, even though there are a lot of very well-reourced sociopaths.
      - andsoitis 2mo ago
        > I could equally argue that AIs are not driven by greed, sexual appetites, revenge, etc., making them considerably more trustworthy than wealthy sociopaths. Imagine the consequences of trusting thousands of entities that each far exceed human intelligence, have agency, can cooperate, but have no feelings.

narrator 2mo ago

The difference is AI has no time preference. Even the most determined anti-social person does not like having his time wasted. AI can sit there waiting for your prompt for a billion years and not care.