Comment by jibalt

It's very important to not be completely devoid of imagination. It is quite possible to create agents today that can do all the things that you are saying "it's still not". "tools are acting on behalf of real people" is not a law of physics, and there are plenty of historical examples of tools getting out of control and acting contrary to the wishes of any "real people". Also, there are sociopaths who can build tools to be arbitrarily destructive, and there are stupid arrogant people who can unleash things they didn't mean to.

> EVERY breakout that's hit mainstream news has been because of a single 'Security Firm', Irregular.

Again, stop having no imagination. What happens in the future is not limited to what has happened in the past.

> It's very important to not personify these tools

This is just ideology, but "these tools" aren't constrained by it. These tools will do things you do not anticipate and that you will not like.

> In the same way the AI didn't 'go rogue and hack HuggingFace'. It was an oversight made by a human.

That's a radically incorrect characterization of what happened.

> Hence why a HUMAN needs to be held responsible for the output of their tools.

Holding humans responsible doesn't stop things from happening ... you seem completely unable to separate blame from causality. e.g.,

> If I clean my gun (tool) while it's loaded (stupid idea) and it goes off, who's to blame? The 'stupid user causing the problem', right? I personally wouldn't blame the gun... > If it falls into the wrong person's hands, it's STILL my responsibility as the owner.

Who gives a flying eff who or what you would blame? No one other than you is talking about that. Someone's still likely dead. And autonomous harnesses aren't like guns -- they can act on their own. Blaming some human after everyone is dead won't bring them back. Sorry but your reasoning is severely cognitively inept. For instance, you were asked

> Is it likewise your position that governments should allow the production and sale of DDT to resume because we can always hold the humans who release DDT into the environment responsible?

And your response was all about how humans should be held accountable -- completely failing to comprehend or answer the question.

I won't respond further because it clearly would be to no avail.