19 hours“Who bears legal responsibility when an agent blows past its guardrails and causes real-world harm?”
That is very easy to answer - the person being responsible for what is running on that hardware when it’s personal hardware, and in corporate environments the manager who is responsible for deploying the agent and the engineers who didn’t ensure this doesn’t happen if they failed in their responsibilities by not monitoring the system (dependent on if the manager even allowed suffcient ressources for monitoring, if not, they should also not share the blame)
- NarrativeBear@lemmy.worldEnglish19 hours
AI is a tool
Similarly you can’t blame a hammer for causing harm, you blame the individual who holds it.
- Polyphilic@lemmy.caEnglish17 hours
AI is closer to owning a pet.
If your dog escapes the back yard and kills a child, you dont blame the dog.
You blame the owner who created a poor containment and for giving the dog the right incentives that led to the death
If you crush someone’s skull with a hammer, you are responsible, not the person who made the hammer. But what if you crush someone’s skull with a hammer that was sold to you as a head massager?
- Smaile@lemmy.caEnglish14 hours
In this case open AI was the one wielding the hammer (the AI) though, idk what your argument even is.
- NarrativeBear@lemmy.worldEnglish16 hours
Yup that’s what I was getting at, but I like the pet analogy better that another commenter brought up.
- Sewerking@sh.itjust.worksEnglish17 hours
Sort of. With something as simple as a hammer sure, but when the hammer is equipped with a 9mm pistol then it falls under different safety standards that deem the tool inherently unsafe. A physical tool would be recalled if somebody got hurt in an unintended way.
- schipelblorp@sh.itjust.worksEnglish22 hours
We’re about to find out how much OpenAI is willing to pay to avoid discovery.
- ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zipEnglish17 hours
They’re already due to run out of money mid 2027. And sizing up their user base only increases their expenditure. They have zero path to profitability.
This being a public interest group, they might not even take the bribe
- schipelblorp@sh.itjust.worksEnglish20 hours
Sadly, the first and foremost goal of every institution is to preserve itself.
- habitualTartare@lemmy.worldEnglish21 hours
So this company is suing based on a CA state law arguing unfair competition. To me, this case seems weak and if it does have merit in California it certainly won’t in federal courts. Actual complaint rather than the ai summary pretending to be a news article
- bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish11 hours
Yeah, I don’t see how anyone other than Hugging Face can have standing to bring a lawsuit over the breach. Is the unfair competition claim that OpenAI is allowed to hack Hugging Face with no repercussions but another company can not?
- Sackett@thelemmy.clubEnglish11 hours
Even shakier IMO
“LASST suffered harm from OpenAI’s unlawful and unfair business conduct because LASST has been required to divert resources from its normal activities to educate regulators, civil society, and the public about the facts, legal issues, and potential dangers of OpenAI’s conduct”.
The organization sued under California’s Unfair Competition Law, arguing OpenAI’s “unlawful and unfair business practices” diverted work and resources to responding to the Hugging Face incident.
This ain’t going anywhere. Hugging Face already had a large chunk of OpenAi money to keep quiet about the incident. No doubt they’ve waived their rights for future litigation too. A bunch of public interest lawyers in the US isn’t going to help. The government won’t allow it.
