But why should humans carry liability? Why not have a company (e.g. a self-driving car company) hold all the liability.

Thing I didn't mention is aligned incentives. "Pilot also wants to arrive safely so he can see his family."

Unless he doesn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525

Congrats on finding a corner case

true for pilots but not true for your other examples: "officials, accountants, lawyers"

But we've constructed other incentives for those people, like being allowed to keep your certification. What you say makes sense though, you should believe the pilot is in the same boat as you. Your lawyer... well there's a reason jokes about lawyers focus on why they screw over everyone else.

Some forms of liability only scale with the ability of the justice system to mete out suitable punishment. Murder is disincentivized because the punishment is, essentially, losing your freedom and sovereignty entirely.

This plays both a role individually and socially. It's important to the individual's calculus to understand what is at stake and it's importance to them. It's also important socially for people to feel safe that punishment is commensurate and sufficient.

This doesn't seem to be the sort of thing that scales to companies or AI. It's not clear to me what the analogue would be, it's not clear that these analogues would serve the important social purposes they must, and it's not clear that the justice system has the power or capability to deliver these punishments.

Today's society is, in large part, based on the ability for society/governments to enact brutal violence on bad actors at a scale commensurate, in the worst cases, with their entire being.

This is completely wrong. By the logic of deniers like you, if any country doesn’t allow AIs to do such jobs because of legal or liability reasons, then some other country will. There is nothing stopping complete redundancy except progress in research. So can you finally confront the question if that is something that you actually want?

Deniers of what exactly? I haven't denied anything? Seems like perhaps you are answering another thread.

Statistically, you think that regulating AI is pointless because another country will just push forward. So that’s not true? You think AGI should be prevented?

Where have I said that? Try reading it again.

Answer the question

Why don't you write a proper question? There's this tool you can use to help, it's called ChatGPT.

No, your mental gymnastics are way too intense even for full blown AGI. You’re pathetic.

Sorry but I checked your comment history and it’s dense with posts scalding people for their mental gymnastics and their pathetic nature. Perhaps interacting with forums isn’t bringing out your best side? Doesn’t seem like it’s working out that well.

Yeah, people are pathetic. I get a ton of people using ad hominem, like you, and other coward tactics to shortcut the actual substance of the issue, and it’s pathetic. Especially in the context of a serious problem threatening society. I won’t go through your comment history because I’m not a pathetic coward and it doesn’t have anything to do with the matter at hand. F* you

Okay, well I do wish you the best anyway.

I’m just going to weigh in as a bystander by saying that you seem legitimately delusional. Your replies have almost no relevance to the other side of the conversation. If this is something you tend to have issues with, please take this as an indication that you need to do something about it now.

Is time magazine delusional? They published an article that is almost word for word what I put forward here. In 2018 I said gtp would lead to an explosion of AI and that AI was getting out of control. I was universally dismissed by idiots like you who insinuate that I’m insane. Well, now everyone in the 1st world knows the name GTP and people are talking about these problems in the news, talking about how AI may be getting out of control. Do you know how crazy it is to have an idea like that and then see it explode into public awareness? It’s frustrating. If you think my ideas are wrong then enter a twitter space or phone call with me and we can come to a conclusion. Your characterization of my comments as being delusional is dishonest and cowardly.

Please don't break the site guidelines yourself, or perpetuate flamewars, regardless of how badly someone else is behaving. It only makes everything worse.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> if any country doesn’t allow AIs to do such jobs because of legal or liability reasons, then some other country will

Some other country _might_.

Let's look at the past. Which country has allowed fully autonomous vehicles without the driver being responsible in case of accidents?

There is no such thing as a fully autonomous vehicle. There are only highly autonomous vehicles that require a human to be present in the case of an emergency, ie trains. That will no longer be the case. The AIs will eventually be much better at handling emergencies, driving, everything than humans.

Which country in history had a habit of truly passing up on hugely significant economic or military resources based on some principled idea? None. Because all the ones that did couldn’t survive. You really are going to try to argue that geopolitics is powered by virtue?

That’s not true, there are fully autonomous vehicles. The reason we don’t see it daily — and I doubt we ever will - is that AI will always make mistakes. But you can’t put in jail an AI and the way they make mistakes is unpredictable to humans.

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/toyota...

You’re contradicting yourself. You say there are fully autonomous vehicles but they aren’t capable of autonomously driving themselves fully. Ie they aren’t fully autonomous. So that aren’t any fully autonomous vehicles.

Ok so now you’re saying that AGI is impossible. That’s a completely different argument. And it’s wrong to reject regulation based on that argument because it can’t be proven. So you can’t reject regulation that way and you can’t reject it with your idea about humans having intrinsic value. So you are forced to support regulation of AI.

They are capable, but society wont allow it because of the legal implications. You are arguing a strawman.

Dude what are you even talking about. If you want to continue this conversation then we have to talk on the phone or twitter spaces or something with higher bandwidth because this is wearing out my thumbs.

He's saying you're arguing in bad faith because you are: Human drivers are fully autonomous and make mistakes - the difference being we accept the risk of human drivers and their mistakes as a society and have not (yet) with self driving cars.

That fact does nothing to disprove the existence of autonomous vehicles.

Go outside, friend.

This is absurd. He’s saying that human obsolescence can’t be real because we have fully autonomous vehicles already and humans are made to drive them. First of all, no we don’t have them. Second of all, if we had a system that didn’t make mistakes then we would let that system drive instead of a human, obviously. There is no such system to point to to contradict me. This entire argument is stupid. Humans won’t be employed to do things that machines can do better. 99.9999% of cloth is weaved. Y machines, not humans. By your logic there should be a human manning each loom.

Go outside? Go back to Reddit you retard and don’t come back until you’re graduated from high school.

He’s not saying anything of the sort.

You seem very worked up and calling people names is ironically something a puerile teenager in high school would do.

Go outside, get some fresh air and perspective and come back to being a productive member of this community.

Please don't break the site guidelines yourself, or perpetuate flamewars, regardless of how badly someone else is behaving. It only makes everything worse.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Maybe they will not not because of virtue, but because it is not desirable.

Since the article is about "affected" and not specifically about "losing jobs" we can say that butlers, high class escorts, and masseurs will use ChatGPT as well so they will be affected.

Just you wait until the fleshlight plug-in drops.