Andrew Cullen:
[…] if a human asks an AI agent to gather health statistics, and the agent hacks a government server to do so, the human could lack the deliberate intent required for a conviction. The AI agent, meanwhile, lacks the legal personhood to be charged, as well as human intentionality.
Current Australia laws effectively treat AI actions as if they are something that just happens to us – like a severe weather event. This shows a glaring loophole in our legal system that does not hold those who make, maintain and use these systems to account when something goes wrong.
I do think it’s relevant / I think we’re arguing the same point from different ends. I’m simply underlining the idea that this whole shooting match isn’t AGI and that we should push back on that framing, before we solve the wrong problem in the wrong way.
It’s still dangerous, but semantic games of gotcha are not what needs to happen.
I’d certainly agree that the way in which the AI companies frame the problems (i.e. Skynet will kill us all) is not really helping. I guess it gets more people talking about the problems, but that runs the risk of escalating things in the wrong direction if the framing is wrong.