Andrew Cullen:
[…] if a human asks an AI agent to gather health statistics, and the agent hacks a government server to do so, the human could lack the deliberate intent required for a conviction. The AI agent, meanwhile, lacks the legal personhood to be charged, as well as human intentionality.
Current Australia laws effectively treat AI actions as if they are something that just happens to us – like a severe weather event. This shows a glaring loophole in our legal system that does not hold those who make, maintain and use these systems to account when something goes wrong.
No no no. This is the wrong approach.
If corporations are people (in the US: supreme court decision on Citizens United) then the outputs of these AIs are speech. We may not like it, but it’s where we are.
It’s kind of wild to me that we watched the whole AI development cycle, but when it started getting squirrelly in terms of output, now we have to hedge. And, somehow, doom and gloom is the paid diversion.
Maybe this is a massive failure, and people calling for caution because of the doom and gloom are marketing. It is designed to make people stop hating on the corporations who mindlessly pushed this anti-human trash.