The post this replies to couldn't be fetched from mander.xyz.
Open the original post
Replying to a post on mander.xyz
I think you’re mixing up who’s morally at fault and who’s legally responsible. They can be and often are completely separate things. You can do nothing wrong and still be legally responsible, or you can knowingly commit evil and get away with it.
That’s what I’m trying to say here, that it’s not really the operator’s “fault” if an A.I. goes off and does a crime they didn’t ask for. It’s also not really the developer’s “fault” if an A.I. they have no real control over malfunctions. But someone will probably end up legally responsible regardless. The question of who is a tough one since there’s no obvious wrongdoer to point a finger at.
Disagree, the agentic LLM use does not have any real agency of its own, the user giving it access and a request and not preventing the possible illegal ways it could fulfill that request and entirely on the user for being ignorant and irresponsible trying to shift work onto a system with chaotic behavior.
Yes but also no.
I mean, in my opinion, making a stochastic agentic program is irresponsible, selling it as AI is unethical, and using it is also irresponsible, but there’s a question of how much an average Joe Shmoe should be liable for given how the tools are marketed. It’s complicated, but it’s not an unsolvable problem.