• Live Your Lives@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 days ago

    I get where you’re coming from because people and those directly over them will always bear a large portion of the blame and you can only take safety so far.

    However, that blame can only go so far as well, because the designers of a thing who overlook or ignore safety loopholes should bear responsibility for their failures. We know some people will always be more susceptible to implicit suggestions than others are and that not everyone has someone who’s responsible over them in the first place, so we need to design AIs accordingly.

    Think of it like blaming an employee’s shift supervisor when an employee dies when the work environment is itself unsafe. Or think of it like only blaming a gun user and not the gun laws. Yes, individual responsibility is a thing, but the system as a whole has a responsibility all it’s own.

    • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      we need to design AIs accordingly

      No, we don’t. The harm was self-inflicted. The reader had unlimited time to contemplate their actions before committing them. This is entirely on the user.

      • Live Your Lives@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Say I custom built a gun and gave it to someone I know who obviously has severe mental issues: do you think I would have no responsibility for the actions that other person takes? By your logic it seems like I shouldn’t, since the mentally ill person has all the time in the world before they end up making a terrible decision.

        • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          16 hours ago

          do you think I would have no responsibility for the actions that other person takes?

          Yep: not your problem. That person needs a handler, and you’re not theirs. We can give people informed choices. We have no duty to defend someone from their own irrationality.