posted in Technology
AI agents aren’t legally responsible for any harm that they cause, experts say. So who is?
www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/13/ai-agents-arent-legally-responsible-for-any-harm-that-they-cause-experts-say-so-who-isposted in Technology
AI agents aren’t legally responsible for any harm that they cause, experts say. So who is?
www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/13/ai-agents-arent-legally-responsible-for-any-harm-that-they-cause-experts-say-so-who-isReplying to @sanitation@lemmy.today
I see a lot of oversimplifying analogies in the comments, but in my opinion none of them take into account that users of AI don’t know how it works or its risks, and some AI like Grok offers inherently problematic and potentially harmful/illegal functionality
Replying to @LemmyPlaceDN@europe.pub
People don’t really know how their cars work either, but they are still responsible for crimes they commit with them.
Well, except for running over cyclists. They are allowed to do that.
The difference is that there are people who train very specifically to know exactly how the inside of the car works, and they’re legally liable for the state of how said car works after they work on it.
If your engine blows up after a service, you blame the mechanic, if it blows up after you bought it bew you blame the manufacturer.
If your slop bot goes rogue and starts giving your personal details out to people it shouldn’t when all you did is ask it to make a picture of a cat in a stetson, or in the case of grok, generates csam as part of its regular functions, what else do you do but blame the company that created it?