When you treat is as a tool, like guns, then it’s simple: AI does not do unlawful things, people do. So anyone handling this tool is responsible for ‘it’s’ actions.
Treat AI as if it’s an intelligent pet, and any damages it does also transfers to the one responsible for it - almost the same difference.
When a certain line of AI’s keep doing unlawful things then, because it’s categorized as ‘pet’, treat them as an unreliable breed.
Treat AI as an stand-alone individual, then ask why on Earth a company let’s an untrained idiot have access to all kinds of sensitive PII data and continuously allow it to hack websites.
We can’t even get laws stating that these fucking machanical turk “AI” cab companies are responsible for the shit their driverless cars do, and those have immediate real world impacts.
I have a better question: at least some of those “driverless” cars are at least some of the time remote controlled by people in Southeast Asia or Pacifica. Do they have valid US driving licenses?
Even if it was a standalone indivual (which is NOT) we can all agree that it cannot act alone just like a kid and who’s at fault when kids do bad things? The parents which in this case would be the users
But it’s in many cases not ‘your’ kid. You have invited someone else’s kid (with unknown upbringing) to let it play with yours (or alone at your place, but that’s an awkward example). You can instruct it to play around, but who’s at fault when this invitee starts to make a mess all by itself.
Anyway, in the case of hacking, as we can read in the news, it is the kid doing it’s ‘explorations’ unsupervised from its parents house.
but who’s at fault when this invitee starts to make a mess all by itself.
Idk where you live, but here where i live, it’s the fault of who’s job was to watch over the kid in that moment, the only exception could be if the kid’s mother told him to bring a weapon and to kill people
When you treat is as a tool, like guns, then it’s simple: AI does not do unlawful things, people do. So anyone handling this tool is responsible for ‘it’s’ actions.
Treat AI as if it’s an intelligent pet, and any damages it does also transfers to the one responsible for it - almost the same difference. When a certain line of AI’s keep doing unlawful things then, because it’s categorized as ‘pet’, treat them as an unreliable breed.
Treat AI as an stand-alone individual, then ask why on Earth a company let’s an untrained idiot have access to all kinds of sensitive PII data and continuously allow it to hack websites.
Lol, I like to dream too.
We can’t even get laws stating that these fucking
machanical turk“AI” cab companies are responsible for the shit their driverless cars do, and those have immediate real world impacts.If you ask me then each and every single “driverless” car should have its own driver’s exam. And should be renewed after every lobotomy or “upgrade”.
I have a better question: at least some of those “driverless” cars are at least some of the time remote controlled by people in Southeast Asia or Pacifica. Do they have valid US driving licenses?
Even if it was a standalone indivual (which is NOT) we can all agree that it cannot act alone just like a kid and who’s at fault when kids do bad things? The parents which in this case would be the users
But it’s in many cases not ‘your’ kid. You have invited someone else’s kid (with unknown upbringing) to let it play with yours (or alone at your place, but that’s an awkward example). You can instruct it to play around, but who’s at fault when this invitee starts to make a mess all by itself.
Anyway, in the case of hacking, as we can read in the news, it is the kid doing it’s ‘explorations’ unsupervised from its parents house.
Idk where you live, but here where i live, it’s the fault of who’s job was to watch over the kid in that moment, the only exception could be if the kid’s mother told him to bring a weapon and to kill people