Interesting topic now that all the major developers sat down with trump and announcements were made to integrate these systems into the government. Quick dont make any laws so the government mold this technology to MAGA ideals.
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2026
793 points (99.7% liked)
News
39444 readers
1952 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Developers or companies?
Developers. Like if you're prompting they want all the liability on you. Please ignore the man behind the curtains.
Lolwut? At that point, I might as well start my own company.
Too right? Like if shit goes down and there's someone caught for the prompt that made the agents go off into fuck knows what, that person gets charged too right?
The blame lies in both the someone who wrote the prompt and the company that allowed the prompt to go off safeguards.
Yeah, obviously, if I commit code authored by an LLM, I am the one committing it. I am the one responsible. The LLM may be called an agent, but it lacks all sentient agency. The branding of AI is not true AI, and it seems like this chairman actually gets that anthropomorphization is a problem.
LLMs are tools. If the hammer flies out of your hand and hits someone in the face: yes, it's your fault. It may not feel like it, but I'm sure it does to the person who got hit in the face. We're all adults, and we can probably understand the stochastic randomness involved, and that accidents happen, and a human can write bugs and do stupid things just like an agent can. But we can also understand the responsibilities of the person swinging the hammer.
If I write bad code that lights everything on fire, I am fucked. If my agent writes bad code that sets everything on fire, I should also be fucked. I can have explanations, but I can't have excuses. Especially if I'm the one committing it and I'm okaying / signing off on it.
There's a saying in avionics: "crashing means crashing." you need to be very aware of what you're writing and the consequences it can have. obviously the severity varies by industry, but professionals have accountability, responsibility, and yes, often, liability.
If you try to conduct malicious experiments with AI and it's not confined properly and it does break out and cause real harm, it's just like you were conducting any other kind of experiment and it goes wrong and someone else got harmed. It means that your safeties were inadequate or a terrible accident happened. You don't get to just point at the hammer and say "I don't know man, it just flew away."
Thanks for coming to my TED talk
I agree with you here. Playing devils advocate though, who’s responsible for cases like this:
- user queries LLM service provider to break law
- user queries LLM service provider to build tool capable of breaking the law
- user queries LLM service provider to do legal task, but LLM determines it needs to break the law to complete task. Does so without explicit human instruction.
- same thing, but on hosting providers where someone else supplies the model
- same thing, but the user Lora patched the model to some extent
I wonder how we might split accountability between hosting providers, inference providers, users, … based on context. This might be something that winds up being discovered through existing cases, but unfortunately the current cases aren’t really going to court much are they?
load more comments
(12 replies)
load more comments
(26 replies)
Well of course. Who else would be liable?
if my car "breaks loose" of its parking break, I'm responsible for every kid it rolls over.
AI companies should be responsible for the damage their AIs do when they "break loose"
load more comments
(6 replies)
This is the first sensible proposal for regulating AI that I have ever heard. Make the chucklefucks who are unleashing this horror directly responsible for their bullshit.
Chat GPT hacks a government website? 5 years in jail for Altman. Claude agent deletes someone's database? Amodei gets the bill to fix it.
All AI bullshit stops over night.
Unfortunately the Corporate Veil exists in the US (and most other) legal systems. I personally believe that this is a major root for all of the bullshit we have to deal with on a daily basis. You kill someone, you go to prison. A company has shitty safety intentionally to save money and someone dies, nobody sees prison. CEOs always say they deserve the money because they take the risk... Let's make that very true.
The entire board should be held accountable and share the punishments, otherwise they still have their fall guy.
This isn't even regulation. The floor is not being distracted by morons shouting "it's alive!" whilst robbing you and pointing to a computer. "Arrest that computer officer! It did all the bad things!"
Or its just another way for the government to prosecute you and strip you of your resources. I'm SURE that no one will be unjustly punished over something their AI did.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Absolutely 100%.
If an OpenAI model hacks another company, OpenAI should face criminal charges for the AI's actions, and should be liable in a civil lawsuit by that company no different than if an OpenAI employee personally hacked the site.
Doesn't matter that it's an AI. If you can't control the software you're building (be it AI or not) you shouldn't be building it.
load more comments
(6 replies)
How in the fuck could that ever be a question??
I’m impressed that someone with an iota of power just called it out as it is? That direct quote is the sanest thing I’ve heard out of that entire continent in over a year
load more comments
(1 replies)
No, I will happily pay for all the damage that Grok, Claude, ChatGPT, and Joe’s bait, tackle, taxidermy and AI will inevitably do to me and my family.
I am also looking forward to the stock market bubble to pop destroying my retirement
It is the least I can do
/s
load more comments
(1 replies)
~~suggests~~ should be demands. Spineless and useless.
AI CEOs currently talking strategies for avoiding liability with their LLMs.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Even better make the client liable. If grok is spewing lies that leads to damages for someone, don't make just Elon Musk liable and XAI or whatever made it, make Twitter liable for it spewing garbage.
If a real estate agent uses AI and it messes things up for a buyer for seller make the real estate agent liable.
If people are liable for the AIs mistakes they won't use it. If people don't use it AI will die.
If you make the companies that made AI responsible, they will get token $1 million dollar fines after weeks in court while making $1 billion in profit and nothing will ever change.
load more comments
(3 replies)
What angers me is that people are buying into the AI shit that the companies are peddlings. These aren't sentient machines with a will of their own or even any mechanism to do anything on their own. These shit-heels are taking a text generator, trained on doing all sorts of shit, and piping its results into a bash-shell. If you just don't do that they can't do any of the damage they did in OpenAI's case. They try to make it look like they're figuratively breaking out of a cage or jail. That's not what's happening.
They're given every tool they need and then they add clumsy and inefficient filters on the output text they're writing. It's negligent incompetence.
But they do this for a reason. They want legislation to stop what they're doing. OpenAI specifically does not have an avenue currently where they end up making money, so they want everyone to stop training new models so that they can focus on making a positive cash flow rather than competing.
People need to stop eating the bullshit these companies are shovelling. Yes, if you write an application that breaks into the pentagon you're looking at jailtime. If you host a LLM that does the same thing it's the exact same issue. If it did break in then you weren't paying attention (i.e. being negligent). It's not a complicated problem.
Llms should be accessories where someone is intentionally doing bad things(criminal neglect or whatever) and should be completely responsible when it without being instructed to do bad things.
The fuck is wrong with us already that this isn't already obvious.
They made the product and the product is doing illegal things. How is it NOT their fault and responsibility?
It should be safeguarded from doing bad things, by the developers, who should be liable for the public saftey issues the product they sell causes. You should not be able to prompt these things into crime, they should not have jail breaks, and they damn sure shouldnt be developing them into weapons systems. The problem is when you're aiming the things at surveillance and violence, you're gonna find a lot of ugly uses for them at home. As we rush these things out to make more money faster, eventually a really unsafe product will ship, an inconceivable use will arise. A jail break that can't be undone. Yea the producers should be liable and safeguarding their product.
A piece of software cannot be held accessory to a crime.
EXACTLY. Great point! the people producing it can. The people profiting off the mayhem can absolutely be held accountable by the law, or a mob or pitchforks.
It should have been apparent that I am talking about whomever is providing the LLM service/who owns the hardware
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yes, this would fucking nuke the AI industry
Good. They are catching on
view more: next ›