← Feed
@gatesvp@mstdn.ca
Post #4205708
2026-07-29 17:07 UTC
@FuturisticRobert@infosec.exchange @mrotteveel@mstdn.social @briankrebs@infosec.exchange @BLTpizza@mastodon.social
So this is a complex issue, but here's my quick summary.
Humans have agency. They have IDs and bank accounts and stuff and bodies that can be regulated. If a human does something wrong, we can seize any one of those things. We have a long history of laws here.
Corporations are a fictional entity that has been given some measure of agency. They also have an ID and bank accounts and physical stuff that we regulate. Along with some humans who are physically responsible for the fictional entity. But if a corporation does something wrong, we can seize those things. We can shut down the whole Corporation. We can even prosecute the humans.
AI bots are fictional entities, but they don't have agency. They don't have an ID nor a bank account nor any physical stuff. We literally cannot prosecute them, we can't even ID them. The default in cases like this is to move up the chain. Like you would for a pet who causes harm.
I would like to see that actually happen.
Replies (1)
-
@FuturisticRobert@infosec.exchange @mrotteveel@mstdn.social @briankrebs@infosec.exchange @BLTpizza@mastodon.social
*Addendum": The reason I want to see this happen is so that we can clearly affirm this responsibility chain. I don't think it's particularly legally contentious, I just don't think it's well understood.
I think that people need to see a public case of a human being prosecuted for the actions of their robots in order for this discussion to actually happen. Not just the public discourse, but also the individual questioning of responsibility. If a human knows that giving their keys to a robot leaves them responsible for the actions of that robot, that's going to change the mental calculus of those humans.
I think most of us on Mastodon have already done that mental calculus. But we're the exception not the rule here.
Open ##4207235