- cross-posted to:
- fuck_ai
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- fuck_ai
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
US Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson said on Friday he would resist describing AI agents as autonomous actors that “break loose” with “wills and desires of their own,” suggesting the developers who instruct agents would be the ones liable for harm.
“I’m going to continue as long as I am chairman to resist this anthropomorphizing of these tools,” Ferguson said at the Reuters Momentum AI Austin event. “If someone tells a tool to do something, and the tool does it, I don’t think we would say, ‘Oh, what do we do about the tool?’”
Ferguson’s remarks illustrated potential avenues for the Trump administration to take as incidents rise in which agentic AI testing resulted in unauthorized access to corporate or government data.
Reading this tells me the guy doesn’t know much about AI. It just isn’t as simple. You have multiple real people involved in anything an AI does. So which one is resposible… The people who built the AI model? The people who built an agent on top of the model? The person who told it to do what it did? I mean, certainly it isn’t the AI. At least he has that part right…
To me that says it’s the user
But it also says “suggesting the developers…” he bounces around. Talking about agents, developers, and users interchangeably. But they aren’t.
That one. There’s no question.
How about if the AI was marketed saying it specifically would not allow such things, but it did anyway. Does the company get off scott free? (Can’t say I have ever typed out “scott free”. That can’t be the real words, can it?)
Scot free. https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-2732,00.html
But the culpability still lies with whoever told it to do that. Whether the company built it to do that or not, if the user told it to “hack the Pentagon”, they are responsible. If they told it to take some action and left it unsupervised, they are still responsible for what it does.
(If they told it to do something completely innocent like report the weather, then it would not be their fault. If they told it to check the weather and left it running and unsupervised and it decided “the government has the best data on weather, I’ll just hack the Pentagon” then it would again be the fault of the user for letting it run unsupervised with no restrictions.)
I just don’t see it that way. If I buy a kid friendly toy that speaks. And it is advertised as saying nothing tiny children shouldn’t hear. Then I press the red button, and it screams out the N word. Am I to blame? Of course not. AI are often marketed to schools and such with significant promises of what they will do. If a kid tells it to do something it isn’t supposed to let them do, and it does it. Is it the kids fault? The school who bought it and let th3 kid have unsupervised access to it for 5 minutes. I don’t think so.
What if no one told it to do what it did?
Not possible. AI doesn’t work like that. You can automate telling it what to do, but someone has to write the prompt. Agents are where it gets interesting. Because the AI tells them what to do for you based on what you told it to do. But the agent is often a customized ai. And it can even be a product that a business sells. So one could argue that to some extent the business that created the agent have responsibility. I think the reality is a mix. If I tell my AI to tell the agent to do something illegal, I am certianly partly responsible. But if the agent was sold with a feature that claims to stop it from doing the illegal thing I told it, now they have some responsibility.
It is possible tho so I am not sure what you are on about. You could not answer the question faithfully do not engage with this stuff in the future you are hurting the cause because you’re an idiot.
It is not possible. I work with AI, and not as just a user. Generally it is not possible to prove a negative (plenty of exceptions though). And I already said why in my comment. So Why don’t you go ahead and say why it is possible. Oh you didn’t… cause you don’t know the technicals… so you just claim I am wrong and an idiot.
I will give you a bit of a taste. AI is a program. It runs on a computer. When you turn on the computer, the AI is not running. You must start it. And when it starts, it either does nothing, waiting for a prompt, or it executes a prompt it was instructed to execute on start up. So… it always starts from a prompt one way or another.
AI is simply a next word predictor. It needs to have some prompt from which to predict the next word. And even if you want to drift out of the standard llm, which clearly we are discussing, something has to kick it off, that might be baked into the application, but AI requires an input, so while you can automate that first input, it still didn’t come from the AI.
If LLM’s actually did what you told them they’d be super intelligent I have no idea how you think it’s appropriate to be so evasive to a perfectly legitimate question. If you want to pin responsibility of a rouge agent on the person who initiated it, then just fucking say that normally you dumb asshole.
Trying to get me on your emotional roundabout of mediocrity fuck off ya dog
Thanks for confirming you have no idea what you are talking about.
No, I have no idea what YOU are talking about. It’s certainly possible for an LLM to do something it was not instructed to do.
Someone sets it into a prompt loop.