> What is the law for this

the root of this conversation said

> Force them to vet ads or simply not run ads

> What if the AI agent was running on an Israeli third party company server and there was another rogue agent that polluted its prior context window causing it to go rogue, it then hacked the Meta/Google Ad reviewer agent and caused it to accept the ad

that would be a CFAA or other cybersecurity abuse, which is a separate topic.

That's the thing about naysayers. They will say "it's impossible", "this technology doesn't work like that" and conveniently forget that technology must follow the law, not the other way around, and that the laws can be changed to fit the technological advances.

What if i plug in an AI smart gun and point it at a person and the AI decides to pull the trigger do I go to jail?

Who goes to jail if a Tesla is hacked and runs over someone autonomously?

The rf engineer?

The cyber security engineer?

The project manager?

The AI engineer?

The hacker?

What if the hacker was an AI models that escaped its' sandbox across the world somewhere?

Like best case the family gets a payout and things continue like status quo, if you personally do something, you are screwed, but there is not really any law that can tie responsibility beyond some monetary punishment/cost of business for large corporations.

Get rid of the industrial exemption and the responsibility falls to get licensed engineer who approves the design.

Most people don’t realize that many industries work within the framework of licensure, but also have industrial exemptions. There has also been a movement to peel back some of those exemptions because of the problems you point to.

Okay, my industrial engineer who approved this is part of a 3-man company in India.

We already do this. My prior uni got hacked, everyone's IDs/drivers licenses/passports, mails, data got leaked. The vendor was a 4-person third party cloud provider who had all of the necessary security certifications for the uni to avoid gross negligence. No-one paid anything as the 4-man firm went bankrupt and the uni got a new provider who is fully licensed to avoid gross negligence.

With software, you can stack these shells of proxies almost for free.

I’m not sure I follow. An industrial engineer is not the same as an industrial engineering exemption.

Which licensed engineer stamped the software? The answer is probably “none”, because licensed engineers are liable even if their company is bankrupt. The person holds the license, not the company so it sounds like we’re talking past one another.

Sorry I mistyped, it meant to be responsible engineer given the industrial exemption.

I worked in HW before for home electronics that had to be certified. There was no responsibility for the engineers, the cert house had to take on this responsibility, and they had a shell certification company hired who would conduct the tests and take on the responsibility. At one point there was a litigation due to an RF leakage from a LATAM-bound device causing signaling issues to public infra, but it went nowhere because of the layering of responsibility made by the cert houses. No engineer was responsible.

That type of HW certification is different than what I’m talking about. Yes, there are certain quality standards and certifications for something like J-STD, but importantly the domains that use them, like aerospace, still fall under industrial exemptions when it comes to a licensed engineer taking responsibility.

Please let it be Elon...

Please let it be Elon...

Please let it be Elon...

Example: Licensed professional engineer has an intern design a bridge. Bridge collapses. Who is responsible? The licensed professional engineer.

This isn’t new to other domains. They already have systems to define who is responsible. If you’re outsourcing to AI, that shouldn’t absolve you of responsibility.

Okay so if the intern uses an AI which spawns another AI that breaks into some critical infrastructure, their supervisor is responsible?

It's a bit different in the software realm

It different by convention. That’s the point. The convention can be changed. There are already PE licenses for control systems, so there’s no reason it couldn’t extend to other software. However, I think the industry would fight that tooth and nail because it’s easier and more profitable to shrug off the responsibility.

What if the engineer who "stamps" the software is outsourced to a 3rd party company that has the necessary certification to avoid gross negligence. So the engineer has followed the protocol as det my law and has done everything right, they can't be liable.

Happened at my uni, look at the comment below.

You’re hung up and confused by certifications, which are a different animal. Look up what PE license actual are and how they function.

You can’t just outsource a design for a bridge to avoid responsibility. If that bridge is being built in California, an engineer who is licensed in California ultimately has to stamp the design, even if all the design work was done elsewhere.

I am saying it's not the same for software

And I’m saying that’s only true by convention. The same rules can easily apply to software. There no fundamental reason it can’t, the “yeah but we’re different” excuse is just a rationalization.

Software can be regulated, which just choose not to in many instances.

I don’t see that as very different. Once it’s established that this is possible or even likely outcome of using AI at scale, we should treat this as a form of negligence and act accordingly.

Yes, the human who kicked off the chain is responsible. This is not complicated.

>How? What is the law for this? It's not defined who is responsible for agents. What if the AI agent was running on an Israeli third party company server and there was another rogue agent that polluted its prior context window causing it to go rogue, it then hacked the Meta/Google Ad reviewer agent and caused it to accept the ad

The law could be whatever we wanted it to be.

Your example scenarios are hardly compelling reasons that we should just accept the status quo.

We don't need to allow companies to have no liability in accepting automated electronic claims of anything from anyone in the interest of making more ad revenue faster.

Fantastic, your wish is granted, the monkey's paw bends one finger.

"I do not accept this" does nothing, look at the current power situation of the big data companies, look at the economical incentives, will you personally go out and do something in the coming weekend that will change anything regarding this question? Next weekend? Who is going to do this?

If you can't answer that, you have to go with the assumption of status quo because it doesn't seem like your world is happening.

What an annoying way to answer someone. "Hey you can't do anything, so might as well not talk at all".

You came to a discussion board, one about founding and building. You can disagree with people, but to act like the status quo is some immovable rock? I admit, it's difficult. But the world changes and can be changed.

Making up scenarios that have no grounding to reality does not move a discussion forward.

If I start talking about space unicorns arriving to earth and giving people UBI by thirsting their horns up peoples asses, it does not move the conversation forward meaningfully to any resolution.

I would love if there was engagement that was grounded in incentives, if you can see a way out of this mess by realistic action, that would be meaningful.

I’m assuming you’re American and your low probability for laws making meaningful changes is therefore rational given your broken political system. But that doesn’t mean other countries could not act. For all its faults, age verification of social media is a clear example of a policy that looked very unlikely a few years ago, and yet will likely have a material impact on the lives of young people in Australia and some European countries.

Making networks liable for fraudulent ads, or even placing a small duty of care on those who display ads would be politically popular in much of the developed world. I don’t see it as at all unrealistic that a populist of the left or right would not try and implement this in the next 10 years.

Sure. Age verification is however a massive celebration here at big tech. Many companies have really struggled with getting people to upload their IDs/passports as this has been seen as as integrity violation. It's a base for a successful internal profile for ads.

Now this was handed to the companies on a silver platter through litigation.

I think this is the single most annoying thing about this site – the pervasive belief that anything that is happening must be allowed to continue happening, because if it's happening it's somehow good/right/unstoppable.

This goes further than a simple aversion to regulation. It's a kind of defeatism on a scale I've never seen anywhere else, bar maybe very nihilist circles or angsty teenagers.

Politicians who want a slice of that money do...

If my dog escape his cage and bite the hand of a woman, who is responsible? Me. The owner. The end.

If they accepted the ad they are liable. The origin of the ad is irrelevant. How they review the ad is irrelevant. The law need only regulate the outcome.