>Person wielding AI, as with any other tools, is responsible for all of its actions. Otherwise, it’s just a psyop for more AI regulation, ban open source, etc… Just my 2 cents.
But some tools (guns) are regulated.
But some tools (guns) are regulated.
We want rule-of-law, and in the US, people should have an absolute right to bare arms, as in the second amendment. Free market forces can then determine appropriate prices, insurance, and protective measures to make sure those guns are managed safely.
If I want an F35 and an Abrams, that's okay, so long as Lockheed and General Dynamics are willing to sign off (with full liability for damages) that I'm managing them safely.
Free markets work pretty well with:
a) Full transparency, as needed for rational decision-making
b) No way to externalize costs
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
1. The reason is well-regulated militias, but the right is of the people.
2. The militia isn't a state apparatus. Indeed, the goal of the militia is to enable a rebellion if the state is no longer free.
Now, here again, "well regulated" gives plenty of leeway. For example, one might argue that the following scheme fits:
1. I can have whatever arms I want, including an F35
2. The F35 lives with a militia, which is well-regulated. I can use it in trainings there.
I don't think one could argue the militia could be under state control (that defeats the purpose!), but one could easily argue that it could be well-enough regulated that the current far-right extremist groups would not fit.
The concept was a group of citizens under e.g. a town / city council.
That's obviously not where case law went, but in an alternative reality, it very well might have.
3. the militia is supposed to be under state control and its purpose is to keep the state free, aka prevent overreach of the federal government
4. The "well regulated militia" is the motivation, not the right. That makes the "well regulated" part irrelevant and there is no basis for any regulation of arms
One would mean any effective state milita should have some F35, the other means you can have one personally
Read your militia clauses in the U.S. Constitution.
The problem with AI is that the AI might do something that would constitute a crime (eg. attempting to land malicious code via a PR), but the general legal standard to convict a person of a crime is malicious intent (or sometimes negligence).
If the human user instructs the AI to do X and the AI does X by committing crimes in the process, the prosecution usually has to prove the human intended this to happen (or is somehow criminally negligent). For traditional tools, the user has much greater control over the tool so the intention can be more easily deduced from the results. For AI, at least for now, results can be wild. I don't think the legal system is prepared to put people in prison because their AI randomly ran amok after being given an innocuous prompt. This is analogous to holding a driver criminally liable for harming people due to a serious malfunction of the vehicle.
If anything, I think more liability should be imposed on AI developers.