Isn’t that argument shaky still? Parents are liable for the actions of their children to a certain age. Just because an entity has agency or rights, doesn’t mean the person who is hosting the entity is free of responsibilities.
Parents are liable for the actions of their children to a certain age.
First off, a technicality: At least in the jurisdictions I’m familiar with, “parents are liable for the actions of their children” is a popular misconception. The full story is: Parents are liable for the actions of their children only if it can be proven that they neglected their duty to supervise their children.
Also, I doubt AI companies would forego the chance to offload responsibility for their creations. Nothing in the article suggests they’d want AI to be treated like their children, but more like an entity separate from them.
First off, a technicality: At least in the jurisdictions I’m familiar with, “parents are liable for the actions of their children” is a popular misconception. The full story is: Parents are liable for the actions of their children only if it can be proven that they neglected their duty to supervise their children.
Huh that’s interesting. I did some reading on and in the context of this discussion, it seems like it still checks out (at least according to local laws in my region). If a parent provides a knife to a child and the child proceeds to commit the crime, it does fall into neglect.
I the same vein, this would apply to the permissions and access given to these agents. That’s sorta why I specifically didn’t use the term “child” in my post but rather the entity that they are actively hosting. If they didn’t host that entity, no harm would have been committed.
Isn’t that argument shaky still? Parents are liable for the actions of their children to a certain age. Just because an entity has agency or rights, doesn’t mean the person who is hosting the entity is free of responsibilities.
First off, a technicality: At least in the jurisdictions I’m familiar with, “parents are liable for the actions of their children” is a popular misconception. The full story is: Parents are liable for the actions of their children only if it can be proven that they neglected their duty to supervise their children.
Also, I doubt AI companies would forego the chance to offload responsibility for their creations. Nothing in the article suggests they’d want AI to be treated like their children, but more like an entity separate from them.
Huh that’s interesting. I did some reading on and in the context of this discussion, it seems like it still checks out (at least according to local laws in my region). If a parent provides a knife to a child and the child proceeds to commit the crime, it does fall into neglect.
I the same vein, this would apply to the permissions and access given to these agents. That’s sorta why I specifically didn’t use the term “child” in my post but rather the entity that they are actively hosting. If they didn’t host that entity, no harm would have been committed.