[pear01]

Police officers are human. In the United States in the vast majority of cases you can't sue the police, only the community responsible for them.

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

Assuming you can still sue McDonalds I am not sure if this is a problem in the robotic llm case. I'm also trying to imagine a case where you would want to sue the llm and not the company. Given robots/llm don't have free will I'm not sure the problem with qualified immunity making police unaccountable applies.

There already exist a lot of similar conventions in corporate law. Generally, a main advantage of incorporation is protecting the people making the decisions from personal lawsuits.

[logicchains]

>Police officers are human. In the United States in the vast majority of cases you can't sue the police, only the community responsible for them.

Police are a monopoly; nobody has a choice about which police company to use. McDonalds are not a monopoly, and many customers would prefer to eat at competitors run by entities that could be sued or jailed if they did anything particularly egregious.

[pear01]

You are missing the point. The point is you can still sue the McDonalds. With the police there is a human intuition to also want to sue the officer, given the officer is a human being who has free will and thus made a choice to violate your rights.

The same intuition applies if you walk into McDonald's and a person there mistreats you. You want that person held responsible.

But the LLM is not a person. What is there to even sue? It just seems like it would simply pass through to the corporate entity without the same tension of feeling like we let a human get away with something. Because there is no human, just a corporation and the robot servicing the place.

Put another way - if the LLM is not a person, what is the advantage of a personal lawsuit?

Just sue the McDonalds. Even in a case where the LLM is extremely misaligned and acts in a way where you might normally personally sue the McDonald's employee, I'm just not sure the human intuition about "holding someone accountable" would have its normal force because again - the LLM is not a person.

So given we already have the notions of incorporation and indemnification it doesn't make sense to say what is precluding LLMs from running McDonald's is they can't be sued. If McDonald's can still be sued, then not only is there no problem, there is very likely not even a change in the status quo.

[parineum]

> given the officer is a human being who has free will and thus made a choice to violate your rights.

The purpose of qualified immunity is for when an officer does something that turns out to be illegal but they were both told to by their superiors and did not think it was in violation at the time.

An officer making a choice to violate your rights would not be eligible for qualified immunity.

[pear01]

Wow yes excellent point, because of course a police officer facing the threat of legal action would never attempt such a low bar lie. Oops my boss told me to. Oops I didn't know. Case dismissed.

Excellent standards for people authorized by the state to run around with a badge and a gun in a free society. Your comment history on this is so unimpressive. Would you countenance the same excuses in anyone else? A man puts on his police uniform and suddenly you think he should be immune from civil prosecution because "my boss told me so" and "I didn't know"?

I wonder if you will make similar excuses for robo cop. Or if your principles merely extend to whatever human you can find in uniform willing to tolerate your friendship.

[parineum]

You seem to have read a lot more into my comment than was there.

Plus, qualified immunity is only for civil precedings. Individual officers are still liable for any criminal actions they take. I see a lot of people say that some officer should be in jail and blame qualified immunity when those two things are not related at all.

I'm not arguing, at all, that police should be immune to prosecution individually. I'm trying to make the point that, if you are trying to hold police individually accountable for their _criminal_ actions, qualified immunity isn't the thing that's preventing that. There's a whole legal system and union/police culture that's responsible for that.

Qualified immunity is thrown around so much in contexts where it makes it clear that people don't understand what it means and gets used, as it was in your comment, as a bogey man that's to blame for all the times police get let off the hook for their misbehavior. All I'm trying to do when correcting you (and others) about qualified immunity is to both redirect your anger and effort into changing something that will actually make a difference and/or prevent you from spending the mental or physical energy chasing a dead end.

[pear01]

You're not correcting anything. Nothing in my comment suggested I don't know what qualified immunity is or I don't understand the difference between criminal and civil liability. Quite the contrary if you are capable of reading.

You seem to be arguing with yourself, not with me. If you are satisfied with a cop only facing criminal liability (often from the same prosecutors that rely on police to make other cases, among other issues as you pointed out) fine that is your prerogative. Don't file a civil case. But don't misrepresent my position. Criminal prosecution does not preclude civil, nor the other way around. Citizens should not face such hurdles to file civil suits, irrespective of whatever happens re a criminal case. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Surely your comprehend that one can be found liable both criminally and civilly in many cases. Or tried for both but subject to different penalties (including none) depending on how each goes. Why are your LEO buddies so special as to be largely exempt from the rules that govern the rest of us?

The fact your comment history is riddled with these continued misrepresentations on this topic while you claim to educate is simply galling. Have a good day, I don't think I can continue in good faith with someone who seems to predicate engagement on this topic with unfounded assumptions about others education on the issue. Your own comments on this topic indeed are indicative of a severe projection in this respect.

[DoctorOetker]

can you give a more concrete description of a McDonalds LLM mistreating a customer? it's gotten to abstract

[necovek]

It could sneak in an ingredient you are allergic to.

[DoctorOetker]

my only allergy is to bullsh..

and LLM's are getting better at providing less of it

perhaps in the future the GPU-poor can go to McDonalds and get AI to solve their riddles by ordering an extra napkin with the solution written on.

[necovek]

I guess you are in a tough one right now, because BS is all around ;)

[nemomarx]

McDonald's are franchises - you generally want to sue the local owner or threaten them in addition to the holding company.

That only requires someone own the ai managed McDonald's though. so long as they can't avoid responsibility by pointing to the AI I don't see why you couldn't sue them.

[lancekey]

25/75%. Plenty of stores are owned directly by McDonalds corp.