Thread

1. walrus01 · 1790635188 · focus · HN ↗

   I wonder if there's any legal precedent for other "not fully human intelligence" property that escapes containment and causes damage to a third party without any active malice, but nonetheless damage was caused. For example:

   A. You own a large amount of cattle on a ranch.

   B. Cattle are property. They're not human level of sentience, but people agree that cattle are capable of autonomous actions and going places and doing things based on their own instincts and nature.

   C. Your cattle bust out of a fence on your ranch and damage something belonging to your neighbor. Let's say for the sake of an example of something cattle are known to do, they go spend a whole day rubbing up against your neighbor's car and severely scratch it and mess up the paint job on it.

   D. You didn't instruct or train the cattle to cause damage, and the cattle have no actively malicious intent of their own, but nonetheless damage was caused.

   Further theoretical: Your cattle wander into a major highway and cause a car wreck, the local sheriff's department is called out as part of the chaos and has to shoot some of them to put down the wounded beasts.

   1. QuadmasterXLII · 1790635331 · focus · HN ↗

      further theoretical: this has happened repeatedly for months

      1. walrus01 · 1790635388 · focus · HN ↗

         Yes, exactly, imagine if there was a sudden and unprecedented in scale plague of cattle escaping containment and causing car wrecks all over Wyoming and Montana, and multiple incidents of AR-15 armed sheriff deputies having to dispatch them on site.
      2. bigiain · 1790637209 · focus · HN ↗

         And, you've boasted about it in media releases, blog posts, and financial filings.

         1. no-name-here · 1790650730 · focus · HN ↗

            1. How are you distinguishing boasting from responsible disclosure and calling for safety standards?

            2. If during their early days, cigarette companies or oil companies had published information & financial filings about the risks of smoking/climate change and calling for safety standards, would you similarly call that “boasting”?

            3. If Chinese AI labs similarly published info whenever their models did unexpected or malicious actions, would you similarly call that “boasting”?

            1. QuadmasterXLII · 1790686638 · focus · HN ↗

               stretching the cigarette metaphor, there is the (apocryphal?) phenomenon of opiate addicts flocking to the dealer who most recently overdosed someone. Boasting implies liability but not falsehood or safety.
   2. giancarlostoro · 1790636080 · focus · HN ↗

      Yeah but your neighbors car is somewhere in the tens of thousands of dollars, maybe more, but a model hacking and being malicious could be worth anywhere from thousands to millions and God forbid... BILLIONS in damages. Models were NOT doing these sorts of things 1 or 2 years ago as far as anyone knows.
   3. jld · 1790636254 · focus · HN ↗

      This is not some theoretical, there are lots of existing laws about who is liable for damages caused by livestock.

      Some areas are open range. If you don't want cattle on your land its your job to put fences up to keep them out. Other areas are restricted to livestock and it's on the rancher to keep them out of where they shouldn't be.

   4. [deleted] · 1790636303 · focus · HN ↗

      [deleted]

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.