4 ms·

You know the proverb "If you owe the bank $100, that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem" Same thing here - If they bui

You know the proverb "If you owe the bank $100, that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem" Same thing here - If they build it and it does $100 in damages (and we arrest them for it), that's their problem. If they build it and it does $100B in damages, that's everyone's problem. Even if they do get arrested after the fact. Yes we should have charges and damages for everything on https://www.felonybench.com/ https://www.felonybench.com/, but that doesn't address the core issue of this being possible at all.

trhway 17d ago
> it does $100B in damages, that's everyone's problem. we have the 2008 crisis to wit. And the involved supposedly failed math models and lines of responsibilities and other involved financial relationships were much simpler and clearer and of the types well known to the law and regulators, yet... Additionally any urge to regulate AI is attenuated by how much the situation reminds Industrial Revolution - rush into it laying waste to your land (look at the depictions of industrial England back then) and be among the world leaders or stay pastoral and be devoured/colonized/etc. by the industrial powers like happened with many countries in 19th and even into 20th century. One would think there should be a 3rd way. I'm sure there is one, as well as i'm sure that we lack sufficient global societal mentality level needed to achieve it (we couldn't even handle much simpler climate change issue). May be emerging AI itself at some point will get us there (hope we'll like or at least will be compatible with that future :) Edit: just on NPR - Trump said that AI already has all the necessary guardrails - the smart high IQ President.
- watwut 17d ago
  This interpretetion of history ignores the actual historical events.
  - trhway 17d ago
    i'm sure that i'm telling actual historical events and not an interpretation. Feel free to point to the things which you think didn't happen.
edot 17d ago
Why have any laws then? If laws can't prevent something, only punish it after the fact (which I agree is true)? Yet we have laws. People generally follow them because they expect to be caught and punished. If we passed a law that said the CEO of any company that deploys an LLM that commits a crime gets punished as if they personally did the crime (so, basically instant life sentence if it's even a simple crime times a million instances), I guarantee you the first email the CEO sends to the company is a "pause every LLM project we have - we gotta think about this".
- Aeolun 17d ago
  Yeah, so since it’s the CEO’s and their lackeys half determining what laws get to be, we don’t have this kind of laws.
- ElProlactin 17d ago
  > Why have any laws then? At this point, in the US at least, the laws give the corrupt elite the ability to deter competition and to target the people who try to get in their way. In other words, it's protection for the potentate and his sycophants, not the plebs. > If we passed a law that said the CEO of any company that deploys an LLM that commits a crime gets punished as if they personally did the crime (so, basically instant life sentence if it's even a simple crime times a million instances), I guarantee you the first email the CEO sends to the company is a "pause every LLM project we have - we gotta think about this". Why do no such laws exist in practice? Why are corporate crimes almost always settled by payment, not individual punishment? If you answer these questions, you'll know why the law you envision has a lower chance of being enacted than AI destroying humanity.
- Quibblingeek 17d ago
  Because if you break the law while acting as a representative of a company in the United States, the company is subjected to a deferred prosecution agreement, you get off with zero repercussions as the executive representative of the company, and the company you represent gets fined for 1% of annual turnover and gets to continue with business as usual. There are laws, but if you’re rich enough, the laws don’t apply. Boeing was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people. The people that facilitated this weren’t held responsible and were in fact compensated to the tune of 10’s of millions of dollars for doing their jobs terribly.
dmitrygr 17d ago
That’s because arrest is a dumb solution. Restitution. Make them fix what they broke. By hand. 80 hours a week from now until death of natural causes.
- Quibblingeek 17d ago
  No. If you institute a culture that supports and encourages your subordinates to commit criminal acts in the furtherance of a private enterprise, the enterprise and its representatives should be held legally accountable. A lot of problems with America could be fixed if the Department of Justice actually grew a pair and prosecuted people for committing criminal acts. The fact that Les Wexner is not rotting in prison for facilitating Epstein and his friends exploits speaks volumes to the state of this country. If corporations are legally people, they should be held to the same standard as natural persons. As it stands, the “restitution” that is required is so insignificant that it’s treated as an additional tax. If there is no deterrence, there is no behavioral modification. If there is no behavioral modification, the law becomes unenforceable.
account42 16d ago
That's why you punish people doing $100B in damages (or even something that comes close to doing that much damage) harshly enough that no one even thinks of doing that.

trhway 17d ago

> it does $100B in damages, that's everyone's problem. we have the 2008 crisis to wit. And the involved supposedly failed math models and lines of responsibilities and other involved financial relationships were much simpler and clearer and of the types well known to the law and regulators, yet... Additionally any urge to regulate AI is attenuated by how much the situation reminds Industrial Revolution - rush into it laying waste to your land (look at the depictions of industrial England back then) and be among the world leaders or stay pastoral and be devoured/colonized/etc. by the industrial powers like happened with many countries in 19th and even into 20th century. One would think there should be a 3rd way. I'm sure there is one, as well as i'm sure that we lack sufficient global societal mentality level needed to achieve it (we couldn't even handle much simpler climate change issue). May be emerging AI itself at some point will get us there (hope we'll like or at least will be compatible with that future :) Edit: just on NPR - Trump said that AI already has all the necessary guardrails - the smart high IQ President.

watwut 17d ago
This interpretetion of history ignores the actual historical events.
- trhway 17d ago
  i'm sure that i'm telling actual historical events and not an interpretation. Feel free to point to the things which you think didn't happen.

edot 17d ago

Why have any laws then? If laws can't prevent something, only punish it after the fact (which I agree is true)? Yet we have laws. People generally follow them because they expect to be caught and punished. If we passed a law that said the CEO of any company that deploys an LLM that commits a crime gets punished as if they personally did the crime (so, basically instant life sentence if it's even a simple crime times a million instances), I guarantee you the first email the CEO sends to the company is a "pause every LLM project we have - we gotta think about this".

Aeolun 17d ago
Yeah, so since it’s the CEO’s and their lackeys half determining what laws get to be, we don’t have this kind of laws.
ElProlactin 17d ago
> Why have any laws then? At this point, in the US at least, the laws give the corrupt elite the ability to deter competition and to target the people who try to get in their way. In other words, it's protection for the potentate and his sycophants, not the plebs. > If we passed a law that said the CEO of any company that deploys an LLM that commits a crime gets punished as if they personally did the crime (so, basically instant life sentence if it's even a simple crime times a million instances), I guarantee you the first email the CEO sends to the company is a "pause every LLM project we have - we gotta think about this". Why do no such laws exist in practice? Why are corporate crimes almost always settled by payment, not individual punishment? If you answer these questions, you'll know why the law you envision has a lower chance of being enacted than AI destroying humanity.
Quibblingeek 17d ago
Because if you break the law while acting as a representative of a company in the United States, the company is subjected to a deferred prosecution agreement, you get off with zero repercussions as the executive representative of the company, and the company you represent gets fined for 1% of annual turnover and gets to continue with business as usual. There are laws, but if you’re rich enough, the laws don’t apply. Boeing was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people. The people that facilitated this weren’t held responsible and were in fact compensated to the tune of 10’s of millions of dollars for doing their jobs terribly.

dmitrygr 17d ago

That’s because arrest is a dumb solution. Restitution. Make them fix what they broke. By hand. 80 hours a week from now until death of natural causes.

Quibblingeek 17d ago
No. If you institute a culture that supports and encourages your subordinates to commit criminal acts in the furtherance of a private enterprise, the enterprise and its representatives should be held legally accountable. A lot of problems with America could be fixed if the Department of Justice actually grew a pair and prosecuted people for committing criminal acts. The fact that Les Wexner is not rotting in prison for facilitating Epstein and his friends exploits speaks volumes to the state of this country. If corporations are legally people, they should be held to the same standard as natural persons. As it stands, the “restitution” that is required is so insignificant that it’s treated as an additional tax. If there is no deterrence, there is no behavioral modification. If there is no behavioral modification, the law becomes unenforceable.

account42 16d ago

That's why you punish people doing $100B in damages (or even something that comes close to doing that much damage) harshly enough that no one even thinks of doing that.