Thread

1. jeremyjh · 1791037692 · focus · HN ↗

   I think its pretty easy to solve these problems: Whenever an AI agent commits a crime, the CEO is held personally accountable, as if they'd committed it themselves.

   1. dkasper · 1791037952 · focus · HN ↗

      This has been litigated endlessly with guns. The ceo of Smith & Wesson is not personally responsible for what people do with their guns.

      1. angoragoats · 1791038188 · focus · HN ↗

         That’s true, but people don’t typically say “this Smith & Wesson gun killed someone”; they recognize that the person pulling the trigger is responsible.

         With LLMs, at least in the cases of internal/test models doing things they shouldn’t, the people “pulling the trigger” are the board and CEO.

         1. amelius · 1791039009 · focus · HN ↗

            Yes, in the analogy the user was just cleaning the gun, when suddenly it went off. Of course, the company is responsible now.

            1. angoragoats · 1791056273 · focus · HN ↗

               I think you’re confused. My point was that for most of the incidents in the news to date, the “user” is an OpenAI internal team or employee. So yes, the company is responsible.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.