[happytoexplain]

There is enormous variability in how hard a tool is to use correctly, how likely it is to go wrong, and how severe the consequences are. AI has a wide range on all those variables because its use cases vary so widely compared to a hammer.

The use case here is police facial recognition. Not hitting nails. The parent wasn't saying "AI is a liability" with no context.

[mikkupikku]

When somebody uses a tool to hurt somebody, they need to be held accountable. If I smack you with a hammer, that needs to be prosecuted. Using AI is no different.

The problem here is incidental to the tool; it was done by the cops and therefore nobody will be held accountable.

[tovej]

Systems are also a tool. Whoever institutes and helps build the system that systematically results in harm is also responsible.

That would be the vendors, the system planners, and the institutions that greenlit this. It would also include the larger financial tech circle that is trying to drive large scale AI adoption. Like Peter Thiel, who sees technology as an "alternative to politics". I.e. a way to circumvent democracy [1]

[1] https://stavroulapabst.substack.com/p/techxgeopolitics-18-te...

[fc417fc802]

Nonsense. The manufacturer, distributor, and vendor of a hammer are not liable for its misuse. We already litigated and then legislated this regarding guns in the US.

As much as I detest Clearview and Thiel the fault for this incident falls squarely on the justice system.

[tovej]

Your first paragraph conflates the system with the tool. Please at least parse what I wrote before you respond.

You are also conflating legality and morality. The US gun industry being good at lobbying has no bearing on whether an industry that enables mass school shootings is accountable or not. I mean it clearly is. Just compare gun deaths in the US to any civilized nation and you'll see that gun control is the moral and sane approach.

A hammer/gun is not the same as the wider hammer/gun industrial system, and the societal systems it is a part of. The justice system is a part of that. So even though you say you disagree, somehow you still agree?

[fc417fc802]

> Your first paragraph conflates the system with the tool.

No, it responds to the claim you made. You asserted that systems are also tools and attributed fault on that basis. Perhaps at least reread your own comment before condescending.

> You are also conflating legality and morality.

Also incorrect. I understood you to be claiming tool vendors to bear both legal and moral responsibility; perhaps I misunderstood. Regardless, my position is that tool vendors bear neither of those more or less unconditionally. The only way a tool vendor can become responsible in any sense (IMO) is if they knowingly and intentionally facilitate a particular outcome. The manufacturer of a hammer, gun, or AI facial recognition system is never at fault for what the user does with it unless they actively encouraged that particular use.

[tovej]

The AI companies are very obviously facilitating particular outcomes.