Comment by port3000
4 hours ago
If a bull escapes a field and causes damage in the village, the farmer pays for the damages and is liable. It's been like that for hundreds of years and I don't see how this is any different?
4 hours ago
If a bull escapes a field and causes damage in the village, the farmer pays for the damages and is liable. It's been like that for hundreds of years and I don't see how this is any different?
In theory, if Altman or Musk want some highly confidential data for their models, they could set a swarm free at it then claim the agents were operating without authorization
They've largely avoided compensating for everything they've stolen to build their technology upon; these people know that they will never face consequences for their actions. Ask for forgiveness, not permission.
What did they steal? Did anybody thereby lose anything?
Im sure they didnt discover who it was and what they did for free.
What damages were caused here that would need reparation exactly?
If you hack a government website and access confidential information but don't do anything with it ("no harm") you're still going to prison. Good luck arguing in court the no harm no foul defense.
> If you hack a government website and access confidential information but don't do anything with it ("no harm") you're still going to prison.
You could potentially go to prison. Individuals and companies face different sets of consequences though.
The other side of the coin is that the government won’t suffer any consequences for having shitty security either.
Decades worth of hackers missed the opportunity to say "It wasn't me -- my computer did it."
Gottfrid Svartholm tried that defense but he still ended up spending three years in prison.
I've head the 'the hacker did it' excuse from lots of companies that messed up themselves but did not want to admit it.
Not necessarily
https://www.farrer.co.uk/news-and-insights/shut-that-gate-sh...
> "Not necessarily"
Why did you even link that article when it doesn't help your point?
I supports the idea that the person responsible or an animal is held liable - it just makes clarificaitons on common sense caveates like when a professional is moving the animal. It even doubles down on making it clear that expected behavior of an animal is taken into account even if unlikely, like how ai swarms have a reasonable potential to just go awry and commit cyber crimes.
The point is that it is not as simple as "its yours so you are liable for damage", and the article makes it clear. None of the law specific to animals applies to AI, so you need to show negligence. You could bring in legislation to treat AI in a similar way to a dangerous species, but that would be more like keeping a lion than keeping a bull.
1 reply →
Farmers doesn't move fast and break things.
/s