Comment by Ukv

> Yes, that proof is called a professional license, without that you are presumed guilty even if nothing goes wrong.

A professional license is evidence against the offense of practicing without a license, and the burden of proof in such a case still rests on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you did practice without a license - you aren't presumed guilty.

Separately, what trod1234 was suggesting was being guilty-until-proven-innocent when harm occurs (with no indication that it'd only apply to licensed professions). I believe that's unjust, and that the suggestion stemmed mostly from animosity towards AI (maybe similar to "nurses administering vaccines should be liable for every side-effect") without consideration of impact.

> If we have licenses for AI and then require proof that the AI isn't tampered with for requests then that should be enough, don't you think?

Mandatory safety testing for safety-critical applications makes sense (and already occurs). It shouldn't be some rule specific to AI - I want to know that it performs adequately regardless of whether it's AI or a traditional algorithm or slime molds.