Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9702859" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Not to get into the weeds here, but I will note that these issues are complicated and nuanced and just talking about hypotheticals is likely to create further confusion.It's not just the intended use. It's also both the actual use and the reasonably foreseeable use. So liability can attach if a manufacturer, for example, makes something that is totally legal in an intended use, knowing (or with it being reasonably foreseeable) that there will be a misuse. Does Sackler ring any bells?Next, we also need to stop conflating specific-purpose AIs used by professionals with general purpose AIs. In America, an AI used for most medical applications would have to receive vetting through a regulatory framework (a medical device). Because even though they are being used by trained medical professionals, there are high standards for tools in that profession. In the end, it really doesn't matter, does it? There's too much money invested already and too much money to be made. The AI avalanche has begun, it is too late for the pebbles to vote. Or, at least, that's the process that we are seeing going on. And I am not a luddite- far from it. But given what we've seen over the past decade, I do not have a great amount of optimism that concentrating more power into corporations and trusting that they will have our best interests at heart will end well. Maybe I'm wrong. But if there is one thing, and only one thing, I wish people would take from this it is this- in a nuanced and complicated area, the use of a simplifying hypothetical is likely to be more misleading than helpful.</blockquote>

Verification