If LLMs are eventually regarded by a lot of people as an authoritative source, regardless of whether or not they are, I expect a lot of such cases of "morality laundering" to appear.
Teslas too-- a self-driving car mows down a crowd and nobody is held responsible?
Taking illegal action based on what GPT told you doesn't excuse you pulling the trigger. You pulled the trigger. You go to jail.
Don't normalize "just following orders" or it's going to end predictably.
Most don’t think autonomous systems will become safe or accepted as safe until manufacturers are willing to assume liability and indemnify users, as Mercedes has.l, by contrast.
https://insideevs.com/news/575160/mercedes-accepts-legal-res...
[Edited to note the attempt, so as not to assert success — I don’t think that’s settled]
Well, they've made drivers feel more exposed by doing that. I don't think you can actually negate product liability law that way, but if you make people feel like they bear all responsibility, it might help marginally even if it isn't legally effective.
Since we are talking about a system that needs a human on alert and ready to take over at any time to function safely, I wholeheartedly agree. Human nature is still human nature, people will zone out and look for diversions regardless, but fear will motivate some to be a bit more vigilant in spite of the boredom of staring intently at a road that you aren't personally navigating.
"Federal Judge Kevin Castel is considering punishments for Schwartz and his associates. In an order on Friday, Castel scheduled a June 8 hearing at which Schwartz, fellow attorney Peter LoDuca, and the law firm must show cause for why they should not be sanctioned."
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/05/lawyer-cited-6-f...