Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by sbelskie 674 days ago
The elected candidate, who is a human, would clearly be responsible for whatever actions are taken, no?
1 comments

You'd be surprised, I'm sure a human that is proposing this, and is in politics, would do everything in their power to shed responsibility for bad actions and take responsibility for all the good stuff. Tangentially related is the question of who is responsible in an accident when the at fault driver is AI. Is it the engineer, is it the CEO? So if a bot is running the government, same thing...
> You'd be surprised, I'm sure a human that is proposing this, and is in politics, would do everything in their power to shed responsibility for bad actions and take responsibility for all the good stuff.

I'm from the UK, my best example of this is from 2001, when the Conservative Party started running campaign posters saying "You paid the tax so where are the trains?" despite being responsible for the privatisation of the trains before they lost power.

https://www.alamy.com/one-of-posters-from-the-conservative-p...

https://archives.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/repositories/2/archival_o...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_of_British_Rail

That's different because chatgpt's terms of use includes this in all caps:

YOU ACCEPT AND AGREE THAT ANY USE OF OUTPUTS FROM OUR SERVICE IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK AND YOU WILL NOT RELY ON OUTPUT AS A SOLE SOURCE OF TRUTH OR FACTUAL INFORMATION, OR AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR PROFESSIONAL ADVICE.

Waymo, on the other hand, has liability insurance for every single one of their cars, and apparently they get a pretty good rate for their size because they have fewer accidents per car than the average person. The concept of fault is a bit different for them than for a single person. They would have to develop a pattern of systemic failures, rather than an isolated incident, before real questions of liability arise.

I didn't specifically call out ChatGPT so those ToS do not apply here. The government can either create their own model, or not disclose who they are using, in which case they can generally blame AI for misleading the people. We live in a world where deep fakes are being promoted by Elon Musk in a very global way, and people are eating it up, despite it being against platform of choice terms of service. So if you think that a ToS sentence will stop people in power from abusing AI, I would redo that mental experiment.