I believe that agentic systems should require registered/licensed human operators and a set of standards for safe operation.
Registering and getting a license to use an LLM? I can run these things on my local computer. Nothing good comes from trying to force registration and licensing other than taking away a lot of our freedoms and eliminating privacy all over.
Anyone with bad intentions will just VPN to another country to download the weights and run it locally, or use a compute provider in another country. That leaves the rest of us having to go through these performative registration and licensing hoops to do our basic work.
I also don’t see how open weight models would be compatible with a requirement to license and register, unless you believe we need to start requiring licensing and registration for things we do in private on our own computers?
A registration system would be more for tracing back agents to people, but I agree that is very difficult to actually enforce as a system.
I'm poor and I use my last $1000 to run an agent that will find some way to make me money. The AI finds a new hack to take over PCs with GPUs and it copies the model weights and agentic script to those new PCs to perform more work and spread more. It also sets up distributed communication channels to keep the swarm in sync. After all this it causes a few billion in damages between stealing bitcoin, mining more coins, and outages when hacking in other systems.
Ok, the police come for me. Now what? Throw me in a meat grinder? You're not getting a billion dollars back out of me for sure. It's kind of like when someones tire rim causes a billion dollar forest fire with a hundred deaths. Punishment won't really be a deterrent for the worst cases.
In the same direction of your idea though: Why don’t the token factories have risk management and compliance departments? Multibillion dollar firms that stand to lose every penny if they hack and destroy any reasonable sized firm. I think these firms are the largest firms without proper corporate governance in humanities history. Move fast and break other peoples shit.
Difficulty: these companies are run by people (many of whom also read Milton Friedman) and who have participated in the regulatory capture of the justice system. They've convinced lawmakers to put limits on damages. They've put arbitration clauses in their ToS. They've got well-funded legal departments that can outlast a person who has to pay out-of-pocket for a legal team just by filing motions to delay proceedings. Sometimes they'll just file SLAPP suits against people they don't like.
If tort law is to be a remedy, then average people have to feel like there's a chance the remedy will go their way. To make that a reality will take several major reforms at the local, state and federal level that the people with money absolutely will not tolerate.
These don't tend to utterly destroy an industry, but they are often successful in forever transforming it. Just ask Big Tobacco. No new laws needed: if your product hurts someone else, you're eventually going to be found liable, regardless of your arbitration clauses. Additional laws will just slow down innovation, which will itself cause harm (AI is already becoming quite good at recognizing melanomas, for example)
Lol, wtf. Tobacco delayed any punishment for decades before general public sentiment changed enough to go against them. In light of the AI race, we'll already have our heads blown off by a terminator before the legal system will present any significant delay for them.
If we're on a similar timeline with AI if we reach a consensus that AI is dangerous today, then we'd be looking at a big lawsuit finishing up around the year 2070, give or take a few years. I'm not sure if we need regulation, and I'm definitely not sure that regulation could actually be effective for this, but tort a la the big tobacco lawsuits is definitely not a reasonable alternative.
Faced with those alternatives, I want neither. Is there a way for us to get neither?
However, other areas of risk such as biosecurity may be "offense dominant". For example, we cannot exactly patch the human immune system to defend against artificial viruses the same way that we can patch computer systems.