【海外の反応】AIエージェントが起こした損害は誰の責任か 海外「AIを配備して誰かに損害を与えたなら、責任は私にある」
Lemmy c/technology で反応を集めていた話題を紹介する。
AI agents aren’t legally responsible for any harm that they cause, experts say. So who is?
出典: theguardian.com / 元記事はこちら
"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.
In case you were wondering if it wasn't the bleeding obvious.
>>6
If someone sells you a knife that routinely fires bullets, then the company may have some complicity as with any misrepresented product.
If someone sells you a knife that routinely fires bullets, then the company may have some complicity as with any misrepresented product.
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
>>8
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.
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.
>>16
Cars aren't a good analogy- they generally do what you command them to do in a predictable way.
Cars aren't a good analogy- they generally do what you command them to do in a predictable way.
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.
>>10
But it's called an "agent"! Of course it has agency!
But it's called an "agent"! Of course it has agency!
>>18
What if you bowl your ball normally down the lane and of its own initiative it goes and hacks a website?
What if you bowl your ball normally down the lane and of its own initiative it goes and hacks a website?
>>11
In that case, society's to blame.
In that case, society's to blame.
>>51
False equivalencies are trite.
And yes, gun companies make weapons of destruction.
False equivalencies are trite.
And yes, gun companies make weapons of destruction.
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?
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?
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?
What if the bowling ball was really shiny and worth $100B? Should it make a difference?
>>18
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.
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.
>>26
If you make a gun… you didn't make it? o_O
If you make a gun… you didn't make it? o_O
>>26
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.
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.
>>2
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"
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"
>>21
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.
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.
>>41
Really? I'm inclined to blame _that_ on the manufacturer. If 'AI' guardrails fail that spectacularly, it's on the provider. I fail to see any way to blame society, other than perhaps not voting in more sanity, but that's pretty indirect.
Really? I'm inclined to blame _that_ on the manufacturer. If 'AI' guardrails fail that spectacularly, it's on the provider. I fail to see any way to blame society, other than perhaps not voting in more sanity, but that's pretty indirect.
it's like with weapons: Weapons aren't responsible for killing people. The people not securing their wapons from unauthozized access and the people using them to kill people are responsible.
>>28
Then, why are we allowing the “problem” to get weapons?
Then, why are we allowing the “problem” to get weapons?
Let me guess, poor people?
>>12
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.
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.
>>35
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.
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.
※本記事は5ch(Lemmy c/technology)スレッド「AI agents aren’t legally responsible for any harm that they cause, experts say. So who is?」より抜粋・要約して構成しています。
まだコメントはありません。