• tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      My guess is that it’s gonna wind up being a split, and it’s not going to be unique to “AI” relative to any other kind of device.

      There’s going to be some kind of reasonable expectation for how a device using AI should act, and then if the device acts within those expectations and causes harm, it’s the person who decided to use it.

      But if the device doesn’t act within those expectations, then it’s not them, may be the device manufacturer.

      • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah, if the company making the ai makes false claims about it, then it’d be on them at least partially.

    • chakan2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      There are going to be a lot of instances going forward where you don’t know you were interacting with an AI.

      If there’s a quality check on the output, sure, they’re liable.

      If a Tesla runs you into an ambulance at 80mph…the very expensive Tesla lawyers will win.

      It’s a solid quandary.

      • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Why would the lawyer defendant not know they’re interacting with AI? Would the AI generated content appear to be actual case law? How would that confusion happen?