Re: A dog
"AI is like a dog on a leash. If you let it bite someone, you are responsible.
I wish it would be like that. AFAIK, and under English law, it's easy to identify the person who libels you as they are the ones that publish the libel. If it's a corporate body like the tabloid press publishing stuff, then it's up to them to defend their statements - assuming one afford (Or find 'pro-bono') someone willing to represent you.
Only rich people can sue for liable. (Not mentioning the recently concluded 'JD vs AH Round 1' b.s. to avoid legitimising the storm-in-a-teacup created by the media).
In these days of syndication etc., who is liable? The entity in control of the AI who created the erroneous shite that they published in the first place, the entity that re-tweeted it, the website that published the re-tweet or the programmer who created the AI? Good luck with that, as the website publisher/re-tweeter etc. will pass the buck upstream (Assuming they disclose their source!).
We're all familiar with 'Sorry, the computer says no'....but such decisions are (currently) usually algorithmic and can be evaluated/reverse engineered if necessary to correct error. If you can find someone able to 'back trace' the operations/factors leading to an AI decision...I'll show you a bullshitter!
My personal opinion is that AI is good for rules-bound repetitive simple tasks (Like image processing leading to a go/nogo decision or something basically statistical etc.) but as soon as you let it do something that involves actual perception or judgement you're gonna be in a world of hurt, either because the original programmer was crap, the dataset it was trained on was crap, the interpretation of it's output was crap, and the shit output will be accepted as gospel by those desperate to join the AI buzz.
Sorry for any typo...I can confirm that the sharper the kitchen knife, the less it hurts....especially after two or three glasses of vino rosso.