Programming

28684 readers

194 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

snowe@programming.dev

Ategon@programming.dev

UlrikHD@programming.dev

bugsmith@programming.dev

Spyro@programming.dev

369

FTC chair suggests AI developers should be liable for conduct of agents (www.reuters.com)

submitted 6 days ago by HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org to c/programming@programming.dev

49 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/52426446

US Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson said on Friday he would resist describing AI agents as autonomous actors that "break loose" with "wills and desires of their own," suggesting the developers who instruct agents would be the ones liable ‌for harm.

"I'm going to continue as long as I am chairman to resist this anthropomorphizing of these tools," Ferguson said at the Reuters Momentum AI Austin event. "If someone tells a tool to do something, and the tool does it, I don't think we would say, 'Oh, what do we do about the tool?'"

Ferguson's remarks illustrated potential avenues for the Trump administration to take as incidents rise in which agentic AI testing resulted in unauthorized access to corporate or government data.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] shawarma@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I don't think that question is framed correctly.. We don't give guns agency the way we do for LLMs. The manner in which these attacks are discussed is "look at this crazy thing AI did, it's so smart and dangerous!" so the way the discussion is framed around the tool is completely different from the way guns are discussed. Discussion around banning certain classes of weapons is usually centred on how easy it makes it for a single person to commit murder at scale. The discussion about LLMs is not about how easy it makes it for attackers to find and exploit systems at scale. Instead we've got this gaslighting campaign insisting the tool is acting under its own initiative. So I don't think, right now, you can draw a straight line between arguments about AI safety and arguments about gun safety because they're arguing different things.