“The law is clear, says Prof Jeannie Paterson. “If I deploy an AI agent and it causes harm to someone else, I am responsible for that harm.”
In case you were wondering if it wasn’t the bleeding obvious.
A human did this a human should be held responsible. “If you throw a ball in the air are you not responsible for where it lands”
Let’s say that ball is a hand grenade. Who gave it to you? It can’t be JUST the user if it’s that dangerous. Finally parents are being held to account if a kid uses a firearm inappropriately. The same should apply to companies who build AI, if it’s used to hack someone or make CSAM.
The same should apply to companies who build AI, if it’s used to hack someone or make CSAM.
Only if they host the model, if it’s a self hosted open source model, the entity hosting the model should be held accountable
Also to keep your analogy going, if I tell you how to make a grenade. You then go out to buy supplies, make the grenade and blow up your neighbour, should I be held accountable for sharing knowledgea? Because I’m yet to hear about anyone getting into trouble for distributing the anarchist’s cookbook
The difference is that a hand grenade is illegal to own. A series of matrix multiplications is not.
A better comparison is a knife. If you throw that in the air and it lands on someone you are responsible, the person who sold you a potentially dangerous but legal tool is not.
Edit illegal, not legal. silly mistake
Where do you live that hand grenades are legal to own?
Was supposed to say illegal, the argument didnt work with saying legal.
If that were true Musk would have to answer for a lot of CP
The agents are the user end of things. It’s not saying the AI companies are responsible, it’s saying whoever used the AI it responsible.
The big companies have too much money to be held responsible for crimes.
maybe if the president of the USA weren’t a raging child rapist…
Even then nothing would happen because modern day capitalists are like kings and kings don’t get held accountable.
AI agents are non sentient computer programs owned by owners
The owners are responsible
Open AI is responsible, for example. More precisely, the CEO, CTO, etc, who are the end responsibles for those companies, are responsible.
They aren’t held responsible, but fuck yeah, they are responsible and they should be tried and thrown in prison for their actions
They aren’t even actually probabilistic. They’re deterministic with pretend probabilistic characteristics.
Pseudo-random is pseudo. It isn’t really random. That’s why some of them have a setting called a “temperature”. They’re just a fucking program they should have a seed value to behave 100% predictably from the same prompt. The people who own them are fucking responsible and obviously so.
The poor and powerless who will be forced to use this shit in every job, that’s who.
“A computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a management decision” so the owners are accountable then.
management will never take accountability for it’s own decisions.
that’s how you become an excellent manager who climbs the ladder.
if you take accountability you get fired.
The people who use it to do things, obviously. Just like how cameras aren’t responsible for the photos that are taken with them, photoshop isn’t responsible for the images made with it, and knives aren’t responsible for the things that they cut, AI isn’t responsible for the stuff it outputs - the person controlling it is.
Question is: Who is the person controlling the AI?
The one that allowed the agent to do stuff on its own?
The one that wrote the sandbox, that didn’t work?
The one that wrote the user prompt?
The one that wrote the system prompt?
The one that provides the tools to the AI agent to do stuff?
The one that hosts the model?
The one that fine-tuned or post trained the model?
The one that pretrained the model?
The people that provided the input data to the model?
You can be sure the providers will make sure they’re not legally responsible and that the system prompt has been reviewed by the Legal Dept. So it’s you, the user.
Usually sure, but as we see with drive assistants, getting more and more advanced, and potentially resist the control of the driver, then the manufacturer could become liable.
But as we see with drive assistants, the person in the drivers seat (or the registered owner of the car) is responsible.
AI isn’t responsible for the stuff it outputs - the person controlling it is.
Ultimately, you’re right (as they can decide to use AI or not). But these AI Companies need to shoulder the blame for creating, promoting, and selling AI, which (in its current form) is effectively a “broken tool”.
Good computer hygiene says I should lock my computer while I’m away. Yet, I’m suppose to blindly install an AI agent on my machine and ask it nicely to focus on the task at hand and not use any of the other applications or credentials that might also be installed?!?! It’s ridiculous.
I’m not sure how much AI stuff you’ve used, but they can’t access anything you don’t give them permission to access. Like they literally ask you to confirm every single command they run. If you press the “have full access and don’t ask me any more questions” button then you’re accepting the risk that it can do whatever it likes.
I’ve played around with Claude.
they can’t access anything you don’t give them permission to access.
It’s not that “they can’t” it’s more like “they try not to”.
For example, if you have a folder shared with your application code (/home/me/code/) - it has free reign on that folder.
If you add a prompt saying “you are only allowed to access files in /home/me/code”:
you could ask it " oh, what are my aws credentials ", it would have no qualms about reading those files (/home/me/.aws).
You could also ask it to update your settings (/home/me/.claude)
I eventually started to work on a way of running Claude in a docker container with real filesystem enforcement. …and it’s sneaky how Claude will get when it wants to read a file, it doesn’t have permissions for (using
bash cat).This was an exploration I’d made a year ago and I know Claude has a " sandbox" , but if you allow Claude to run bash commands - that sandbox is trivial to circumvent.
All that is great, and correct, but my point is that it asks you to confirm its commands that it runs. It asks you to confirm every change it makes to your code. It asks you to confirm every file it creates.
Everything it does goes through your permission.
You also shouldn’t have it do anything anywhere close to a production system, so it shouldn’t be able to do anything of any consequence.
Except, AI and AI companies will try to convince you that it is right and legal. So I argue that there is also the fault of AI and AI companies as it in intended to be used that way.
The assumption is that the user is supposed to know better but if the user is gullible then wouldn’t some of the fault be with AI and company for taking advantage?
If you don’t leash your dog and it attacks your neighbors then are you and the dog not at fault?
Idiots using things incorrectly and getting bad results is not an AI created problem. When you get a dog, you are responsible for what it does. When you use AI, you are responsible for what it does.
If you don’t know how to use a chainsaw, don’t use one and then blame the manufacturer when you cut your leg off.
If someone sells you a knife that routinely fires bullets, then the company may have some complicity as with any misrepresented product.
But in that analogy, the knife routinely asks you to confirm if you want to fire bullets or not.
AI does nothing without people telling it what to do, and giving it permission to do it.
I said this was exactly what was going to happen years ago. Companies and developers were going to use AI as a barrier between themselves and being sued because they won’t be held responsible for what their creation says.
That’s… That’s exactly the opposite of what the article says 😭 The article is literally about how the guy deploying the model is liable for the harm it causes, as would be the corpo’s. It’s so weird when people comment without reading 😂
AI agents have no agency of their own; their operators are the ones with that control. Negligence in giving an AI agent access to the internet does not absolve the operator of liability.
You rolled a bowling ball down a hill. It struck a few cars on the way and went through a house and killed their pet. Guess who would be held responsible? You or the bowling ball manufacturer?
What if the bowling ball was really shiny and worth $100B? Should it make a difference?
If I make a gun that actively chooses to kill people, I didn’t build a gun and that whole argument falls apart. I’d hold everyone from the CEO to the janitor accountable.
You’re still liable as the owner of the gun. You can sue the builder of the gun in turn of course so they go to jail too.
If you make a gun… you didn’t make it? o_O
That’s not a gun. That’s an autonomous killing device. The only gun that ever killed people of its own free will was the STEN gun. If you make something that kills without human intent, that’s not a gun anymore.
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.
at least in the US you only need that test and license to use the car IN PUBLIC, not for usage on your own private property.
My friend hit a black angus bull that had wondered into the road at night. The farmers insurance had to pay for it and this is something that is well established. There should be zero difficulty in saying that the AI company has to carry insurance for what their software does. Mining companies are supposed to have a fund set aside to fix environmental damage and recover the land, AI data centers should have to do the same. A lot of the retail use violations are already covered by other laws but things need to be expanded and updated. However, some tools like Musks kiddy porn need to be shut down hard and the blame put on the guy who keeps turning the model to reflect himself.
the AI company is more like the company renting the excavators to thr mining corp, or anyone that wants one.
This is a dumb debate, and just wastes time.
The company using said thing, standing behind whatever product is being sold, is, just like using any other tool.
If you’re a landscaping company, and your lawnmower runs over someone, you get sued, not the lawnmower company.
If the reason it happened was because the tool malfunctioned, then you separately sue the AI company.
As no one says their bot is capable of being used in situations that could result in loss of life, that isn’t 100% accurate, because no one should be doing that.
If I turn on auto pilot in my car and hit a pedestrian, guess who gets charged? If you create an agent that causes harm, you are responsible.
I actually don’t know the answer to your question. I’m going to assume you would get charged, even though it should be the manufacturer that is charged.
I would get charged for failure to maintain control of my vehicle and reckless driving and assault with a deadly weapon. Rich corporations don’t face consequences.
A more accurate line would read:
A computer can never be held accountable. Therefore accountability follows inheritance rules, belonging with whoever delegated the computer authority over the decision.
It’s like guns. The shooter maintains responsibility for the bullet, even though they only pulled the trigger.
Should Apple be held responsible for someone making CSAM on their phones?
Should Toyota be held responsible if one of their cars is used to drink and drive?
Should a gun company be held liable if somebody decides to shoot themself in the face?
False equivalencies are trite.
And yes, gun companies make weapons of destruction.
Fuck those experts
