[mike_d]

Yes, if the Civic had a feature that made it easier to hit you, or lacked a reasonable feature that would have prevented it from hitting you.

We have a long history of legally targeting companies that produce products targeted at criminal activity or implied criminal activity.

[ApolloFortyNine]

>Yes, if the Civic had a feature that made it easier to hit you, or lacked a reasonable feature that would have prevented it from hitting you.

Ah but some cars today have automatic breaking, so can I sue the manufacturer for not including one? Maybe Toyota's would have seen the pedestrian, is it reasonable to assume Honda's should have as well? Since this is a safety issue, why did Honda allow the car to even start without an up to date pedestrian detection system?

Does this help you see the issue?

[bluGill]

That one car has automatic breaking means you can sue all others for not having it. Depending on why the others don't have it you might or might not win, but once the technology exists they will ask why others didn't. (sometimes the courts will accept the patent on the technology was too expensive to license, and sometimes the technology can't be put on this car for technical reasons - see a lawyer)

[clucas]

As I said down-thread a bit... the issue with your car analogy is that we force everyone to get a license and register their car before they can drive around. Do you want to have to get a license and register your AI model before you're allowed to start generating images or text? If so, maybe that is a solution. But I doubt anyone would accept that sort of system. So, saying "you can't sue Honda if someone drives into you," while true, doesn't really get us anywhere in addressing the issues with AI.

[ApolloFortyNine]

>So, saying "you can't sue Honda if someone drives into you," while true, doesn't really get us anywhere in addressing the issues with AI.

I'm not trying to address any perceived 'issues' with ai here, I'm pointing out the flaw in holding the developer/ manufacturer liable for what a end user does.

Also I could switch the analogy to planning a robbery over WhatsApp, hacking into a bank using 'pentration testing tools' or even just windows itself for allowing users to run any software they want. Or maybe windows allows piracy by not scanning every file against a hash of known piracy content.

You can make up a million scenarios of end users misusing products, I'm sorry you don't like the car one.

[asadotzler]

With cars we have as a metric shit tonne of regulations so that manufacturers can be relieved of some liability.

Let's do the same for A.I., right? How about you reply with the regulations that A.I. companies face today that are equivalent to what car companies face. I'll check back for your answers. If there are any gaps, then let's get to work on that legislation.

1. *Fuel Economy Standards (Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE)*: Auto manufacturers are required to meet specific fuel efficiency targets for their fleet of vehicles. These standards aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote fuel-efficient technologies.

2. *Emissions Standards*: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets emissions limits for pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and hydrocarbons (HC). Compliance with these standards ensures cleaner air and reduced health risks.

3. *Safety Regulations (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA)*: Auto manufacturers must adhere to safety standards related to crashworthiness, occupant protection, airbags, seat belts, and child safety. These regulations help prevent injuries and fatalities.

4. *Recall Requirements*: Auto manufacturers are obligated to promptly address safety defects by issuing recalls. The NHTSA oversees recall processes to protect consumers from faulty components or design flaws.

5. *Consumer Protection Laws*: Regulations ensure transparency in advertising, warranties, and pricing. Auto manufacturers must provide accurate information to consumers and address any deceptive practices.

6. *Clean Air Act*: This federal law regulates emissions from vehicles and sets emission standards for pollutants. Compliance with these standards is crucial for environmental protection.

7. *Corporate Average Emission Standards (CAES)*: Similar to CAFE, CAES focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Auto manufacturers must meet specific emission targets across their fleet.

(I'm sure the list goes on a good bit longer but I feel like this is enough for now.)

[clucas]

Actually I take it all back, the car is a really good model for how we should handle AI safety.

With cars, we let most people use some very dangerous but also very useful tools. Our approach, as a society, to making those tools safe is multi-layered. We require driver's ed and license drivers to make sure they know how to be safe. We register cars as a tool to trace ownership. We have rules of the road that apply to drivers. We have safety rules that apply to manufacturers (and limit what they are allowed to let those tools do). If a user continues to break the rules, we revoke their license. If the manufacturer breaks the rules, we make them do a recall.

I actually agree with you 100%, this is probably a good way to think about regulating AI. Some rules apply to individual users. Some rules apply to the makers of the tools. We can come together as a society and determine where we want those lines to be. Let's do it.

[Imnimo]

Are steering wheels and gas pedals features that make it easier to hit people?