this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2024
497 points (93.8% liked)
Technology
60112 readers
2202 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
When I read the title I sarcastically thought "Oh no, why is AI deciding to create fake historical photos? Is this the first stage of the robot apocalypse?" I find the title mildly annoying because it putting the blame on the tool and ignoring that people are using it to do bad things. I find a lot of discussions about AI do this. It is like people want to avoid that it is how people are using and training the tool is the issue.
At this point that's the equivalent of complaining about people calling gun violence a problem because "guns don't kill people, people kill people". If you hand the public easy access to a dangerous tool then of course they're going to use it to do dangerous things. It's important to recognize the inherent danger of said tool.
AI is more like torrents, password cracking software, TOR, ect than guns. Just because they can be used for bad or illegal things doesn't mean those software programs are bad. When companies in the past tried to get certain software banned they ran into the issue that if it could be used for legal reasons that enough for them to exist legally.
Now AI does have the issues with how it is trained so the AI itself can be problematic.
I didn't say we shouldn't talk about the problem with the AI I have issues with people making the AI the complete issue ignoring that people use the AI. It reminds me of how automakers tried to make the people driving cars the reason for deaths in car crashes.Thankfully that didn't work and automakers where forced to make cars safer making it safer on the road. It didn't stop car crashes from happening since the human element is there. Which there are things in place that partly address that (Such as Driver's license test, taking away some people's driver's license, ads reminding people of the rules of the road.). I'm annoyed that articles are doing the opposite of what car makers did. Humans are using the AI to do bad stuff mentioned that also! How can we change that? Yeah, it will probably be best to do something to the AI program, but we can't ignore the human element since they the one who are creating the AI, using the AI, and consuming the AI products.
People use guns to kill people so we need to look at both to make it happen less.
Isn't the tool part of the issue? If you sell bomb-making parts to someone who then blows up a preschool with them, aren't you in some way culpable for giving them the tool to do it? Even if you only intended it to be used in limestone quarries?
That really depends on whether the bomb making part is specific to bombs, and if their purchase of that item could be considered legitimately suspicious. Many over the counter products have the potential to be turned into bombs with enough time or effort.
If a murderer uses a hammer, do you think the hardware store they purchased the hammer from should be liable?
You can make crude chemical weapons by mixing bleach with other household items. Should the supermarket be liable for people who use their products in ways they never intended?
Exactly this, many times over.
Most tools with legitimate uses also have unethical uses.
Everything needed to make a bomb can be found at your local Walmart. Nobody blames the gas companies when something gets molotoved.
Maybe if the tool’s singular purpose was for killing. I think guns might be a better metaphor there. Explosives have legitimate uses and if you took the proper precautions to vet your customers then it’d be hard to blame you if someone convincingly forged credentials, for example.
I would say the supplier is culpable if the tool supplied is made for the purpose of the harm intended or if the supplier is giving the tool to the person who does the harm with the explicit intent for that person to use it for that harm. For example, giving someone an AK-47 to shoot someone or a handgun/rifle with the intent that the user shoot someone with it. If the supplier gives someone a tool to use for one legit purpose but the user uses it for a harmful purpose instead, I don't think you can blame the supplier for that. For example, giving someone a knife to cut food with, and then the user goes and stabs someone with it instead. That's entirely on the user and nobody else.
So the potential to do harm should never be considered?
To clarify, instead of intent a better word may be knowledge. If the supplier knows that the user is going to use the tool for harm but gives the tool to the user anyway, then the supplier shares culpability. If the supplier does not (reasonably) know, either through invincible ignorance (the supplier could not reasonably know) or the user's deception (lying to the supplier), then the supplier is not culpable.