[canterburry]

Isn't accountability simply to prevent repeat bad behavior in the future...or is it meant to be punitive without any other expectations?

If meant to prevent repeat bad behavior, then simply reprogramming the computer accomplished the same end goal.

Accountability is really just a means to an end which can be similarly accomplished in other ways with machines which isn't possible with humans.

[miltonlost]

You fundamentally don’t understand either accountability or what people mean by “computers can’t be held accountable”. Who is at fault when a computer makes a mistake? That is accountability.

You cannot put a computer in jail. You cannot fine a computer. Please, stop torturing what people mean because you want AI to make decisions to absolve you of guilt.

[chgs]

What is the purpose of putting a person in jail or fining them?

Retribution? Reformation? Prevention?

[cmgriffing]

Consider the Volkswagen scandal where code was written that fudged the results when in an emissions testing environment.

The only person to see major punishment for that was the software dev that wrote the code, but that decision to write that code involved far more people up the chain. THEY should be held accountable in some way or else nothing prevents them from using some other poor dev as a scapegoat.

[gampleman]

So far. The trials are ongoing but it has cost a few CEOs their jobs which while not all that consequential isn’t nothing.

[cmgriffing]

Oh interesting. I hadn't heard much about it recently. Thanks.

[echoangle]

In this context, prevention. So people see what happens if they screw up in a negligent way and make sure to not do it themselves.

[chgs]

Wouldn’t an AI be able to be fixed to not break in the same way though, thus meeting the requirement?

[echoangle]

No, you don’t just want to fix the problem every time until no problems are left. You want to force people to think about what they’re going to do so that problems that can be anticipated aren’t made in the first place.

[willy_k]

All of the above. Whether or not one agrees with it, humans have a need for retribution, or as we prefer to call it to feel better about it, justice. And you cannot get retribution on LLMs.

[miltonlost]

Mixture of all three, but for the purposes of “accountability”, prevention of the behavior in the first place. But I don’t want to debate prisons when that’s derailing the larger point of “accountability in AI/computers”.

[9rx]

> Who is at fault when a computer makes a mistake?

"Fault" seeks to determine who is able to undo the mistake so that we can see that they undo it. It is possible the computer is the best candidate for that under some circumstances.

> That is accountability.

Thus we can conclude that computers are accountable, sometimes.

> You cannot put a computer in jail. You cannot fine a computer.

These are, perhaps, tools to try and deal with situations where the accountable refuse to see the mistake undone, but, similarly, computers can be turned off.

[canterburry]

What is the purpose of accountability?

[miltonlost]

To stop people from making illegal decisions ahead of time, and not just to punish them after. If there is no accountability to an AI, then a person making a killer robot would have no reason to not make a killer robot. If they were more to be imprisoned for making a killer robot, then they would be less likely to make a killer robot.

In a world without accountability, how do you stop evil people from doing evil things with AI as they want?

[brap]

Right, but as long as you have humans, you will probably need accountability.

If a human decided to delegate killing enemy combatants to a machine, and that machine accidentally killed innocent civilians, is it really enough to just reprogram the machine? I think you must also hold the human accountable.

(Of course, this is just a simplified example, and in reality there are many humans in the loop who share accountability, some more than others)

[Macha]

> If meant to prevent repeat bad behavior, then simply reprogramming the computer accomplished the same end goal.

Note the bad behaviour you're trying to prevent is not just the specific error that the computer made, but delegating authority to the computer to the level that it was able to make that error without proper oversight.

[1shooner]

This sounds like a conflation of responsibility with accountability. A machine responsible for emitting a certain amount of radiation on a patient can and should be reprogrammed. The company and/or individuals that granted a malfunctioning radiation machine that responsibility need to be held accountable.

[Terr_]

I think you're confusing the tool with the user.

Improving the tool's safety characteristics is not the same as holding the user accountable because they made stupid choices with unsafe tools. You want them to change their behavior, no matter how idiot-proofed their new toolset is.

[wmf]

In practice they will try to avoid acknowledging errors and will never reprogram the computer. That's why a human appeals system is needed.

[chasing]

You’ve set up an either-or here that fails to take into account a wide spectrum of thought around accountability and punishment.

When it comes to computers, the computer is a tool. It can be improved, but it can’t be held any more accountable than a hammer.

At least that’s how it should be. Those with wealth will do whatever they feel they need to do to shun accountability when they create harm. That will no doubt include trying to pin the blame on AI.

[maxbond]

This makes sense if the computer was programmed that way accidentally. If the computer is a cut out to create plausible deniability, then reprogramming it won't actually work. The people responsible will find a way to reintroduce a behavior with a similar outcome.

[lutorm]

... simply reprogramming the computer ...

So who makes the decision to do that?

I think most people are missing the point about accountability and thinks, in typical American fashion, about punishment. Accountability is about being responsible for outcomes. That may mean legally responsible, but I think far more important is the knowledge that "the buck stops with me", someone who is entrusted with a task and knows that it is their job to accomplish that task. Said person may decide to use a computer to accomplish it, but the computer is not responsible for the correct outcome.