This is a wrong-headed attempt to regulate AI. The real problems are different.
AI systems, especially multi-agent ones that can do things, are more akin to corporations, than individuals. When you read the logs from the Hugging Face incident, you're seeing something that looks a lot like internal corporate emails. Various units of the organization are arguing over what to do and who does what. They eventually converge and get the job done, breaking the rules at times. This is normal corporate behavior.
When agentic AIs do something outside their own internal world, they do it by engaging in transactions with external systems and people. As yet, few have robots to do their bidding.
So, again, this is normal corporate behavior.
A corporation is a goal-seeking system. In theory, if you agree with Milton Friedman, its sole purpose is to maximize shareholder value. Internally, within the company, there are subgoals, which exist to support the top level goal. That, too, is what multi-agent AIs do.
The uncomfortable place this thinking leads is that AI regulation and corporate regulation are very similar. That's not something the political part of the world wants to think about too hard.
It would mean putting more constraints on corporate power.
Yet that can't be ignored, because we're likely to see corporations where some parts are AI and some parts are human. That's already been done a few times as a demo, not too successfully. Yet.
It's going to hit hard when an AI-run company outperforms a human one.
> AI systems, especially multi-agent ones that can do things, are more akin to corporations, than individuals.
That literally doesn't mean anything from a legal standpoint. A corporation hires human beings and has human beings in control who can be sued or punished criminally. You cannot have a corporation without a human responsible for it in the legal sense. So if AI systems are akin to corporations, the question is who is the promoter in this situation and what are their rights and obligations.
Otherwise, I can also say a McDonald's burger is more akin to poison than food. So just like poison, we must ban McDonald's. But you never really established your points for arguing that it's poison. You just write it matter of factly and expand on it, which is not the way to make a persuasive argument.
> You cannot have a corporation without a human responsible for it in the legal sense.
If the chain of ownership is complicated enough, you can. Especially since Trump suspended the Corporate Transparency Act.[1] Look up "Anonymous LLC". If you're willing to work through one of the sketchier offshore corporate havens, more hiding is possible. There are services that will set up an offshore company online. Some accept Bitcoin.
Animats · · focus · HN ↗
AI systems, especially multi-agent ones that can do things, are more akin to corporations, than individuals. When you read the logs from the Hugging Face incident, you're seeing something that looks a lot like internal corporate emails. Various units of the organization are arguing over what to do and who does what. They eventually converge and get the job done, breaking the rules at times. This is normal corporate behavior.
When agentic AIs do something outside their own internal world, they do it by engaging in transactions with external systems and people. As yet, few have robots to do their bidding. So, again, this is normal corporate behavior.
A corporation is a goal-seeking system. In theory, if you agree with Milton Friedman, its sole purpose is to maximize shareholder value. Internally, within the company, there are subgoals, which exist to support the top level goal. That, too, is what multi-agent AIs do.
The uncomfortable place this thinking leads is that AI regulation and corporate regulation are very similar. That's not something the political part of the world wants to think about too hard. It would mean putting more constraints on corporate power.
Yet that can't be ignored, because we're likely to see corporations where some parts are AI and some parts are human. That's already been done a few times as a demo, not too successfully. Yet. It's going to hit hard when an AI-run company outperforms a human one.
altmanaltman · · focus · HN ↗
That literally doesn't mean anything from a legal standpoint. A corporation hires human beings and has human beings in control who can be sued or punished criminally. You cannot have a corporation without a human responsible for it in the legal sense. So if AI systems are akin to corporations, the question is who is the promoter in this situation and what are their rights and obligations.
Otherwise, I can also say a McDonald's burger is more akin to poison than food. So just like poison, we must ban McDonald's. But you never really established your points for arguing that it's poison. You just write it matter of factly and expand on it, which is not the way to make a persuasive argument.
Animats · · focus · HN ↗
If the chain of ownership is complicated enough, you can. Especially since Trump suspended the Corporate Transparency Act.[1] Look up "Anonymous LLC". If you're willing to work through one of the sketchier offshore corporate havens, more hiding is possible. There are services that will set up an offshore company online. Some accept Bitcoin.
[1] <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-corporate-transparency-act-boi-treasury-2038564" rel="nofollow">https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-corporate-transparency...