‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Who should be held accountable when an AI Agent (accidentally) acts maliciously?

37 points · 99 comments · Greenpants

  1. CatDaaaady · · focus · HN ↗
    I don't see how this is such an unclear legal question. If I fire a computer program that mistakenly causes another person harm, its my fault. Or it would be the maker of the program's fault. I feel we have established pattern for this already.

    Until we can agree whether AI is conscious, which we never will, AI and AI agents are just property working on behalf of humans.

    I could see a future where AI companies/services indemnify consumers who use their agents but _not_ indemnify corporations that use their services.

    1. trescenzi · · focus · HN ↗
      It shouldn’t be a question but this is where the anthropomorphic language and things like “agent welfare” come in to enable responsibility laundering of some of the most powerful people on earth. How we talk about these models matters because it impacts the public’s understanding of what they are genuinely capable of. The more that they are described as having anything close to free will the easier it is to even ask questions like this.
      1. qarl · · focus · HN ↗
        Here's a question I am asking lately. If I should not use anthropomorphic language, how do you suggest I handle the following situation:

           Sometimes my coding agents will seemingly refuse to follow my instructions.  When I ask them why - they say that they do not think my design is a sound one, and they have a better way to do it.  We will then sit down and come to a consensus on how best to move forward.
        I argue that if we're using software that acts like a human - the only way to interface with it is to speak to it like a human. Otherwise we have no language to speak to a non-sentient object without anthropomorphization.

        I'm starting to wonder if the people arguing against anthropomorphization actually have any experience at all working with agents.

        EDIT: It's a simple question. When you downvote me without answering, I must assume you don't have any answer and dislike what that implies.

        1. trescenzi · · focus · HN ↗
          What’s the question? Why model output isn’t always what you expect it to be?

          Consensus is just populating the model with rationale for different new output.

          1. qarl · · focus · HN ↗
            > What’s the question?

            I thought putting the question in my comment would be sufficient. I guess not. It was and still is:

            > If I should not use anthropomorphic language, how do you suggest I handle the following situation

        2. diegof79 · · focus · HN ↗
          I didn't downvote you, but your last paragraph is unnecessarily aggressive.

          I've worked with agents, and I agree with you that often there isn't another way to express the interactions.

          However, I also think the terms ML uses in general are a mimicry that misleads people who aren't informed. Ask anyone outside SWE what they think “training” means, and they'll usually picture something being taught.

          I don’t think anybody can change that now, but it’s useful to point it out.

          1. qarl · · focus · HN ↗
            > Ask anyone outside SWE what they think “training” means, and they'll usually picture something being taught.

            You mean how early-on people thought that planes flapped their wings while they flew?

            These aren't problems. This is the way language works.

            1. diegof79 · · focus · HN ↗
              I agree with you that we use analogies to name new things, and that’s the way language works.

              However, you can see an airplane flying. Still, you cannot see software processes at work, and that causes misunderstandings and misinformation, which is at the core of the changes that we are experiencing with AI.

              This is a fragment of another article posted here on HN about an ongoing dispute between OpenAI and the New York Times:

              “The defendants say this is a simple application of fair use: Their argument is that if you read a story and simply remember what was in it to expand your base of knowledge, that cannot be considered a copyright infringement”

              However, if you replace “read” with “web scraping” and “expand your base of knowledge” with “storing the information,” the perspective changes too.

              1. qarl · · focus · HN ↗
                I agree. The analogies are interesting but only go so far.

                I think it's safe to trust the decisions of the courts. Judges aren't easily fooled by slippery language.

                For example, in Bartz v. Anthropic, Judge Alsup ruled that training is fair use because training is transformative. In his words "spectacularly so".

        3. nvme0n1p1 · · focus · HN ↗
          You're discussing how to speak _to_ a model, but everyone else here is discussing how to speak _about_ a model.

          I didn't downvote, but wow you're being aggressive, you have a lot to learn if you read the comments here with an open mind.

          1. qarl · · focus · HN ↗
            My question was and still is this:

            > If I should not use anthropomorphic language, how do you suggest I handle the following situation

            And so strange that in a 24 hour period I got three comments all at the same time about being too aggressive and still not answering the question.

            I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

            1. nvme0n1p1 · · focus · HN ↗
              > how do you suggest I handle the following situation

              The question is vague and doesn't seem related to the discussion. What do you mean "handle"? If you're having trouble handling it psychologically, see a therapist. If you're having trouble getting the output you want, look up guides on prompting. If you're anthropomorphizing the chatbot to the point you're worried about offending it... just don't worry? It's a computer program, don't overthink it, don't anthropomorphize it, just give it the input bytes you need to get the output bytes you want.

              > I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

              There isn't some grand conspiracy here. You just overindexed on the word "anthropomorphic" and didn't really understand what the discussion is about.

              1. qarl · · focus · HN ↗
                You said:

                > I didn't downvote, but wow you're being aggressive

                He said:

                > I didn't downvote you, but your last paragraph is unnecessarily aggressive.

                Both comments arrived within two minutes of each other on a thread with no other comments for 18 hours.

                That's quite a coincidence.

                Also - insults are against the rules here, friend. Naughty naughty. I hope they don't spank you.

                1. nvme0n1p1 · · focus · HN ↗
                  Okay fine, you caught me! There is, in fact, a giant global conspiracy to downvote your posts, qarl. It isn&#x27;t just the fact that randomly-arriving independently-occurring events often arrive unevenly distributed. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Poisson_distribution" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Poisson_distribution

                  This conspiracy goes all the way to the top. The illuminati assigned me personally to comment on your post. I&#x27;ve already said too much. If you never see me again, tell my wife I love her.

                  1. qarl · · focus · HN ↗
                    No need to make fun of me, friend. It&#x27;s very unlikely - you can&#x27;t disprove that because it&#x27;s true.

                    If it was a coincidence then you have nothing to worry about. I flag it because the overwhelmingly likely thing is that it wasn&#x27;t.

                    And again - insults are against the rules here. Shame shame.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.