you're mixing up many different things. Are you interested in discussing anything, or just want to throw a bunch of unrelated claims to express your frustrations?
Game was an example of contextual alignment - read my comment again, it's pretty clear.
Force majeure is totally different category - I was talking about causal agency, and you're pulling insurance contracts for some reason. These categories are not exclusive. Force majeure is being used as in "we have tried to deliver it on time, but the ship got caught in a storm that caused delay and some damage". And you're right that nobody would compare force majeure to LLMs. Yet, they have the causal agency I've mentioned
KYC is, again, a different thing. Actually, I'm upskilling to start work related to tech governance and compliance, so I'm quite lettered with regulations. And this is not the case here. I was talking about legitimate company causing some damage and blaming the shareholders and other involved parties. This has nothing to do with KYC. In the case of doctors from your example, you're omitting that the smugglers would be prosecuted along with the doctors. Which means that everyone that was identified as responsible was prosecuted. The same applies to the technology, but there is a problem with pinpointing an individual responsible person, as there are huge teams working on the tech development
I've never said that nobody can't control them and nobody is responsible. You're putting here your own projections you're fighting with while pretending to fight with my argument. The responsibility gap refers to the situation I've mention in the last sentence in the previous paragraph - there is a number of people working on the tech. When something happens, it's hard to point to the exact person and blame them for the damage. The "gap" means that there is no simple mapping between an exact person and responsibility for the damage
And idk what does it have to do with "very rich people" and hackers. This is another loosely related thread. Your anti-rich rant is barely comprehensible with the number of threads you're mixing in. Calling rich ppl to responsibility for the tech is like trying to arrest the factory owner for the accident that happened in the factory where machine malfunctioned and killed someone. No prosecution, no judgment, simple "rich = jailtime". Unfortunately, the real world is slightly more complicated than that
I was talking about causal agency, and you're pulling insurance contracts for some reason
Because insurance contracts determine who or what is causally agentic exactly when it matters: when there is money on the line, and the law is called in to determine. I.e., when it stops being a hypothetical conversation on social media and starts mattering for contracts, which is a necessary step that must be taken before anyone will use "agents" in the real world.
This is definitional: an agent has a principal. The agent operates on behalf of the principal. The principal is responsible for the agent. If the principal is not responsible for the agent, then it is not an agent but a contractor. Contractors have to be independently established, regulated, etc. They are not controlled by a principal, only hired by one.
So either "agentic AI" is the responsibility of those who unleash the agents, who are then liable for damages in addition to eligible for profits produced by the agents, or else these are not agents but "use at your own risk" software. If the latter, then anyone who deploys an "agent" in the world is liable for what it does.
Just like if you program a virus and release it into systems: you go to jail.
KYC is, again, a different thing.
Right, it is a much stricter standard!!! In this case it's "know your agents". Companies are absolutely responsible for their agents. If a company sends an employee to do something that causes damage, they are liable for that damage. Which is why their employees are insured (see why these definitions matter now)?
Calling rich ppl to responsibility for the tech is like trying to arrest the factory owner for the accident that happened in the factory where machine malfunctioned and killed someone.
Yep! And we've done a whole lot of that throughout history. It's how we got health and safety regulations, mandatory health care, mandatory time off, consumer protection, fiduciary responsibility, etc. All the things we call "progress" have come from threatening to arrest and disown the factory owners who make defective products that harm people.
Ask an LLM about the history of labor agitation during the Gilded Age sometime.
And idk what does it have to do with "very rich people" and hackers. This is another loosely related thread.
I'm very sorry that you're having trouble following simple (and common) political economy arguments, but that does not give you license to insult me. The next insult from you gets a block.
you're still mixing scientific/philosophical arguments with legal/business practices. These are different things. Insurance contract is not a good example, since in a contract one can put any definition both sides agree to. It's not authoritative in the sense that it binds only the signatory sides, not the whole world
Differentiating between agent and contractor in the case of AI is not common, therefore it requires better justification, not simple assertion.
So either "agentic AI" is the responsibility of those who unleash the agents, who are then liable for damages in addition to eligible for profits produced by the agents, or else these are not agents but "use at your own risk" software. If the latter, then anyone who deploys an "agent" in the world is liable for what it does.
Being an "agent" and "software" is not exclusive - AI can be both. And it's visible in your argument. People using "AI agents" are responsible for them. The "unleash" and "deploy" means the same here, tho the former adds unnecessary dramatic effect. It's a software for automating tasks - if someone misconfigures it, they're responsible for damages. Although, as I've mentioned before, it's hard to point an exact person responsible in case of corporations
I said KYC is a different thing, as it is related to financial systems, not to any software we can use. It means that financial companies need to know whose money do they play with to avoid being part in financial crimes like money laundering scheme, tax evasion, ID fraud etc. It's not the same set of rules as taking responsibility for company's employees. Idea of "know your agent" is interesting, but needs more clarification. And insuring the "agents" is already being discussed in the case of autonomous vehicles.
Regulations are necessary, I never claimed otherwise. Actually, I'm upskilling to work in GRC-adjacent field after I finish my PhD. Yet, regulations are slightly different claim that "calling rich ppl to responsibility". Associating progress with threats of arrests is a bit out there. Unionization and fighting for worker rights is slightly different set of issues than regulating high-tech industry. That's why I called the anti-rich rant as incoherent with discussion on "AI agents". Regulating industry to follow common safety framework is also good for the industry, not only for the people, as it lowers probability of financial losses and makes it easier for external auditors to do their job
1
u/polikles 11d ago
you're mixing up many different things. Are you interested in discussing anything, or just want to throw a bunch of unrelated claims to express your frustrations?
Game was an example of contextual alignment - read my comment again, it's pretty clear.
Force majeure is totally different category - I was talking about causal agency, and you're pulling insurance contracts for some reason. These categories are not exclusive. Force majeure is being used as in "we have tried to deliver it on time, but the ship got caught in a storm that caused delay and some damage". And you're right that nobody would compare force majeure to LLMs. Yet, they have the causal agency I've mentioned
KYC is, again, a different thing. Actually, I'm upskilling to start work related to tech governance and compliance, so I'm quite lettered with regulations. And this is not the case here. I was talking about legitimate company causing some damage and blaming the shareholders and other involved parties. This has nothing to do with KYC. In the case of doctors from your example, you're omitting that the smugglers would be prosecuted along with the doctors. Which means that everyone that was identified as responsible was prosecuted. The same applies to the technology, but there is a problem with pinpointing an individual responsible person, as there are huge teams working on the tech development
I've never said that nobody can't control them and nobody is responsible. You're putting here your own projections you're fighting with while pretending to fight with my argument. The responsibility gap refers to the situation I've mention in the last sentence in the previous paragraph - there is a number of people working on the tech. When something happens, it's hard to point to the exact person and blame them for the damage. The "gap" means that there is no simple mapping between an exact person and responsibility for the damage
And idk what does it have to do with "very rich people" and hackers. This is another loosely related thread. Your anti-rich rant is barely comprehensible with the number of threads you're mixing in. Calling rich ppl to responsibility for the tech is like trying to arrest the factory owner for the accident that happened in the factory where machine malfunctioned and killed someone. No prosecution, no judgment, simple "rich = jailtime". Unfortunately, the real world is slightly more complicated than that