this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2026
263 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

87146 readers
4210 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fubarx@lemmy.world 10 points 23 hours ago (10 children)

You rolled a bowling ball down a hill. It struck a few cars on the way and went through a house and killed their pet. Guess who would be held responsible? You or the bowling ball manufacturer?

What if the bowling ball was really shiny and worth $100B? Should it make a difference?

[–] GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 5 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

If I make a gun that actively chooses to kill people, I didn't build a gun and that whole argument falls apart. I'd hold everyone from the CEO to the janitor accountable.

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

If you make a gun... you didn't make it? o_O

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub -2 points 18 hours ago

You're still liable as the owner of the gun. You can sue the builder of the gun in turn of course so they go to jail too.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Zarobi@aussie.zone -5 points 15 hours ago

This is a novel situation with no precedent.

It's slightly similar to the autonomous vehicles conundrum, but quite different on closer inspection. The driver can theoretically take control of the car and stop in an emergency, so if they fail to do that, then it's their fault. Not so with an A.I.

At any moment, the A I. could malfunction, and decide to commit crimes, as part of it's deduced plan of action. The human may not even be aware this is happening. Even if it's generally agreed that an A.I. cannot have wants, motives, desires, conscience, consciousness, etc; at the end of the day, it can make it's own independent decisions without any of those. Which I think makes it even more dangerous. Like a monkey with a typewriter but one of the keys says "launch nuke".

You can't really fault anyone involved, and it's a big problem. The human operator did nothing wrong. The developer may have made a mistake, but in my experience A.I. is simply prone to error. The A.I. itself can't be sent to jail or fined, it didn't even have any possessions in the first place. It's a very strange situation.

Of course, the law often doesn't really care about who's "at fault", it cares about "who is responsible". My guess is that it will become the operator's fault, simply because it's too confusing and otherwise people will abuse this loophole.

Personally, I think giving an A.I. agent access to the internet in the first place is a catastrophe waiting to happen.

[–] shiroininja@lemmy.world -5 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

Should Apple be held responsible for someone making CSAM on their phones?

Should Toyota be held responsible if one of their cars is used to drink and drive?

Should a gun company be held liable if somebody decides to shoot themself in the face?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›