reuters.com
www.reuters.com

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/52426446

US Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson said on Friday he would resist describing AI agents as ​autonomous actors that “break loose” with “wills and desires of their own,” suggesting the developers who instruct agents would be the ones liable ‌for harm.

“I’m going to continue as long as I am chairman to resist this anthropomorphizing of these tools,” Ferguson said at the Reuters Momentum AI Austin event. “If someone tells a tool to do something, and the tool does it, I don’t think we would say, ‘Oh, what do we do about the tool?’”

Ferguson’s remarks illustrated potential avenues for the Trump administration to take ​as incidents rise in which agentic AI testing resulted in unauthorized access to corporate or government data.

  • hyperion626@lemmy.world
    103·
    3 days ago

    This sounds like shirking the responsibility. It’s not on openai for building a bot that would hack something, it’s on the developer who asked it a problem that it decided to hack to solve it? If they didn’t specifically tell it to hack someone, how is it the person’s fault?

    For example, if I asked AI to make me money on the stock market and it hacked the stock market rather than look for good stocks, why is that my fault?

    • Miaou@jlai.lu
      75·
      3 days ago

      Because you let it commit a crime? I’m not sure why you think you should not be held liable? You do something, you’re responsible for it, that’s extremely simple, and not exactly something we didn’t have before openai

      • hyperion626@lemmy.world
        41·
        2 days ago

        I let it commit a crime? Do you think I can think as fast as a computer? It can write code far faster than I can read it. And it’s also a bold assumption that I would be able to see what the computer is doing in the first place considering OpenAI themselves did not during the hack on hugging face.