this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2026
369 points (100.0% liked)

Programming

28684 readers
342 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

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
[–] leaky_shower_thought@feddit.nl 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

...suggesting the developers who instruct agents would be the ones liable ‌for harm.

this looks like too broad of a law to enforce and will most likely hit the lowest hanging fruit if they ever wanted a scapegoat.

[–] footfaults@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 5 days ago (2 children)

suggesting the drivers who steer cars would be the ones liable for harm

You think this too is too broad of a law? It's equivalent.

[–] runeko@programming.dev 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Driver isn't liable if the engine explodes while he's following the rules of the road. It will be important to hold those who built the models just as liable when they don't follow lawful instructions.

[–] footfaults@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Driver isn’t liable if the engine explodes while he’s following the rules of the road.

Now you're moving the goalposts. We have instances of LLMs hacking and attacking other companies, which is a clear violation of multiple laws that would put a human being in prison. There is no "just following the rules of the road" here.

[–] runeko@programming.dev 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

My point is: if the LLM was following the end user's instructions, then the end user should be liable. If the LLM was going against the end user's lawful instructions, then the company that built the model should be liable. At no point is the LLM itself liable because that is moon-man talk. This follows the same legal framework as automobiles, like you said.

[–] m532@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 days ago

I think the law where I live already works that way: If you buy something and use it correctly, but then it goes haywire and destroys something, it's the producing company's fault.

[–] leaky_shower_thought@feddit.nl 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

yes, that's a fair point.

but in my opinion, a narrow example.

let's say with cars marketed as "FSR", people would believe it is full self-driving. because it is marketed as such. the exact words are there. is it entirely the consumer's fault?

nowadays, FSR got silently tagged with "(supervised)".

[–] footfaults@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

let’s say with cars marketed as “FSR”, people would believe it is full self-driving. because it is marketed as such. the exact words are there. is it entirely the consumer’s fault?

This is exactly the same issue as who is liable for using a LLM tool. You cannot pawn off responsibility onto a computer system. If you run over someone with your self-driving car, you're at fault.

[–] leaky_shower_thought@feddit.nl 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Now you’re moving the goalposts.

You cannot pawn off responsibility onto a computer system.

Have I mentioned such a thing?

If you run over someone with your self-driving car, you’re at fault.

I could agree with this, except that wasn't my point wasn't it?