[ art / civ / cult / cyb / diy / drg / feels / layer / lit / λ / q / r / sci / sec / tech / w / zzz ] archive provided by lainchan.jp

lainchan archive - /civ/ - 3752



File: 1482087525215.png (472.09 KB, 300x169, courthouse.png)

No.3752

http://littleatoms.com/art-design/mediengruppe-bitnik-art-bot-ecstasy-dark-net?

Lots of questions raised here. If an AI — for instance — breaks the law, who's the one responsible? Has a crime been committed, even? If an animal kills a person, that's an accident, not a crime. Is it the same, or is the author responsible?

Is this comparable to malware, where the authors are responsible for what they write. A computer program that messes with other people's computers is just a special case of computer programs doing illegal things. Or is it?

Discuss.

  No.3755

>If an AI — for instance — breaks the law, who's the one responsible?

I'm going to use Microsoft's Tay as a case study.
First thing we can do is try to narrow down what parties were involved.
- Microsoft (cooperate entity behind the AI)
- Microsoft Tech&Research and Bing divisions (developers)
- Tay (logic behind the AI)
- Twitter (delivery platform)
- The people trolling Tay (the AI's learning resource)

Who if any here would you blame for Tay acting outside her intended behaviour?

>If an animal kills a person, that's an accident, not a crime.

Can you elaborate on this? Know of any court rulings?

  No.3756

>>3755
>Can you elaborate on this? Know of any court rulings?
I do have to amend that this probably depends on the jurisdiction. The case I was thinking of has gone 404 and I can't remember if it was actually ruled that way or just my confabulation. I was talking about wild animals here, though, and in general laws usually only apply to humans. This might not universally be the case, of course.

>Who if any here would you blame for Tay acting outside her intended behaviour?

Excellent question, which I don't have a ready answer for. Can the people teaching Tay her habits be seen as highly abstractred programmers?

Similarly to the above examples, let's talk about botnets (not the meme kind, actual ones). Should device owners/administrators/manufacturers be held responsible if servers, PCs or IoT gadgets are illegally used in something like cryptocurrency mining or DDoS attacks?

  No.3761

File: 1482119206562.png (450.49 KB, 128x128, Screenshot_2016-12-19-00-10-54-998.jpeg)

Mildly unrelated, this is from their exhibition.

  No.3784

>>3756
>>Who if any here would you blame for Tay acting outside her intended behaviour?
>Excellent question, which I don't have a ready answer for. Can the people teaching Tay her habits be seen as highly abstractred programmers?
Since Tay wasn't a sentient being but only a complex algorithm that reads and repeats sentences without actually understanding their real meaning, i don't think it could have committed a crime since it wasn't it's only objective.
The AI was created as an online artificial personality influenceable by external posters, the one deciding how to evolve Tay's personality, so the spoon but not the hand.
[spolier] feel free to call me a retard [/spoiler]