After Australia’s first reported automated hacking accident, experts warn deployers – and possibly developers – of AI agents could be held liable for the actions of their bots
I see a lot of oversimplifying analogies in the comments, but in my opinion none of them take into account that users of AI don’t know how it works or its risks, and some AI like Grok offers inherently problematic and potentially harmful/illegal functionality
We also train people how to use cars. Not as well as we should, but you do have to pass a test to use it. But there are many, many regulations for cars.
We cannot train people how to use generative AI in the same manner. Not least because there is no magic method of using it, but every single training I have been to has said, in no uncertain terms, that the AI can and will lie to you, so don’t trust anything it says. Usually directly after it has failed to do as asked.
We do not gate AI. Anyone can use it, and it is, frankly, devastatingly addictive to many people. It has killed people. It is environmentally destructive.
So, I do blame the AI companies that run the software for mistakes because they don’t fucking care. They just want money.
The difference is that there are people who train very specifically to know exactly how the inside of the car works, and they’re legally liable for the state of how said car works after they work on it.
If your engine blows up after a service, you blame the mechanic, if it blows up after you bought it bew you blame the manufacturer.
If your slop bot goes rogue and starts giving your personal details out to people it shouldn’t when all you did is ask it to make a picture of a cat in a stetson, or in the case of grok, generates csam as part of its regular functions, what else do you do but blame the company that created it?
I see a lot of oversimplifying analogies in the comments, but in my opinion none of them take into account that users of AI don’t know how it works or its risks, and some AI like Grok offers inherently problematic and potentially harmful/illegal functionality
People don’t really know how their cars work either, but they are still responsible for crimes they commit with them.
Well, except for running over cyclists. They are allowed to do that.
We also train people how to use cars. Not as well as we should, but you do have to pass a test to use it. But there are many, many regulations for cars.
We cannot train people how to use generative AI in the same manner. Not least because there is no magic method of using it, but every single training I have been to has said, in no uncertain terms, that the AI can and will lie to you, so don’t trust anything it says. Usually directly after it has failed to do as asked.
We do not gate AI. Anyone can use it, and it is, frankly, devastatingly addictive to many people. It has killed people. It is environmentally destructive.
So, I do blame the AI companies that run the software for mistakes because they don’t fucking care. They just want money.
The difference is that there are people who train very specifically to know exactly how the inside of the car works, and they’re legally liable for the state of how said car works after they work on it.
If your engine blows up after a service, you blame the mechanic, if it blows up after you bought it bew you blame the manufacturer.
If your slop bot goes rogue and starts giving your personal details out to people it shouldn’t when all you did is ask it to make a picture of a cat in a stetson, or in the case of grok, generates csam as part of its regular functions, what else do you do but blame the company that created it?