Comment by dfxm12

14 hours ago

I don't know if that analogy holds. You don't normally blame Toyota for car crashes, but the driver. If you must use a car analogy, consider the 2010 Toyota recalls rather than just normal car crashes.

That is to say, anthropic should be considered responsible, not (or not just) the users.

9 comments

dfxm12

Reply
Geezus_42  13 hours ago

Who takes the blame when someone ask the blackbox to complete a task and it then breaks the law in order to complete that task without the user having any knowledge of what it was doing or intent for the machine to accomplish the task in an illegal manner?

  • flavionm  13 hours ago

    When it's an open weight, locally run blackbox, you blame the user, since in that case it's very much possible for the user to restrict what the blackbox can actually do. They have full control over it, so it follows they have full responsibility.

    None of that requires trying to impose limits on open models, unlike what Anthropic is aiming for.

    • Geezus_42  13 hours ago

      We have seen repeatedly that users are not able to meaningfully restrict the blackbox. Besides the fact that laws are already codified restrictions.

      I never said we should impose limits on open models.

      4 replies →

  • dfxm12  13 hours ago

    The situation as provided is missing too many details for anyone to make a meaningful judgement call, but remember, more than one party can be found liable/guilty (maybe of different things) in a situation. Overall, the law usually protects people who are acting reasonably, but does not protect people who act negligently.

    I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine there's not a lot of precedent or law around this, so it'll be up to the court to decide on the finer details until we do have meaningful laws/regs. Anthropic will probably have better lawyers than the user.

    This is why it's important to get ahead of issues like this, and anthropic should not be involved in discussions around regulating itself...