Re:Goldman Sachs Is Pulling Claude Code from Its Bankers and...
by dofm on Sunday November 08, 2026 @07:18PM
(#50419293)
> Employees should never be liable for something that happens if they are using a work-supplied tool at work in the manner in which it is designed to be used.
Architects and properly-designated publishers both have long liability that is actually independent of their employment.
In significant cases, the way you provoke companies to do the right thing (security, sticking to the facts, not cutting corners in building plans) is to make someone responsible if they don't.
That person takes on a job, does the job, and is rewarded properly for the job.
Re:Goldman Sachs Is Pulling Claude Code from Its Bankers and...
by nl on Sunday November 08, 2026 @07:44PM
(#50419499)
Sure, as an oversight role the way some jurisdictions have personal liability for board members for financial oversight that makes sense.
Re:Goldman Sachs Is Pulling Claude Code from Its Bankers and...
by dofm on Sunday November 08, 2026 @07:47PM
(#50419524)
I guess in some situations it's already baked in, right?
A news organisation's liability for AI hallucination falls on the same person that the liability for printing a lie does: the publisher.
It's like saying "developers should be responsible for their own security so we will make them liable if a random node dependency in the application they are building gets pwned"
Firstly, liability and security are different things.
Employees should never be liable for something that happens if they are using a work-supplied tool at work in the manner in which it is designed to be used.
Secondly, it's just lazy thinking to say "oh it's hard therefore we'll make the human sorely responsible".
There are many things that can help - sandboxing, adversarial LLM inspection of prompts, separation of security contexts etc. Yes they are hard and might need new primitives.