Comment by NateEag
9 days ago
What's not okay is a world where unreliable tools can destroy people's lives based on entirely false information, and the purveyors of those tools and false claims get away scot-free afterwards.
9 days ago
What's not okay is a world where unreliable tools can destroy people's lives based on entirely false information, and the purveyors of those tools and false claims get away scot-free afterwards.
So your position is that the general public should be given access to AI only when it is either capable of flawless accuracy, or when the AI provider is prepared to assume unbounded liability despite warning the user that perfect accuracy is not possible.
Correct? Or am I misinterpreting your post?
My position is that inflicting horrible outcomes on a small percentage of the population is not justifiable.
If you don't understand your software well enough to prevent and/or fix such outcomes, you are in moral default by making it available to people.
I find it analogous to selling people hard drugs.
Some users will be fine.
That does nothing for the ones it utterly destroys.