3 ms·
It's time to start talking about a very important question: When a company or person fires off millions of LLM agents that result, is the agent owner or AI pro
by TZubiri 16d ago
It's time to start talking about a very important question:
When a company or person fires off millions of LLM agents that result, is the agent owner or AI provider just civilly liable for damages? Or are they committing a crime in the same way as if they had done these tasks personally?
At some point the mantra of "Do this, I don't care how, I don't care about the code, just do it?" I don't think this is what Karpathy had in mind, but it may follow naturally from the vibecoding tennets that if you don't care how something is achieved, and you delegate, it will be done in a criminal manner. It is not acceptable to not care how something works when you are the one taking credit for building it.
- nullbio 16d agoEither of them should be held liable, depending on circumstance. If it's the result of behavior from a harmless prompt to an AI system hosted at a provider, it should be the providers fault. If it's the result of a malicious prompt, it should be the agent owners fault.
- TZubiri 16d agoA note on the specific accusation on this case (and similar to the German Wiki case), there is no OpenAI user, the accusation is that the models are being operated by OpenAI, in addition to being developed by OAI.
- nullbio 16d agoIndeed. I'm just talking about in general, as to how this should be approached in the future.