The monkeys don't care
about the output. They only care about the input, which is the monkey,
There was barely a beat before he responded. "The simple answer is no," said Jon Sigler, ServiceNow Now Platform senior vice president. The question was whether the workflow platform vendor would take responsibility for the words produced by its newly introduced generative AI technology for HR, IT helpdesk, customer service ( …
And it has started.
I've already said that the responsible is the entity who hosts the thingamabob. Something goes wrong ? Sue them. They don't appreciate ? They sue the maker of the thingamabob. That can drag out in court for decades, consumers are not affected.
There is one basic rule in the French judicial system : if someone is harmed, then the entity responsible for the harm pays. If that entity can find another entity to blame, fine, it pays the someone, then gets reperation in court from the other entity. And so on and so forth. But the consumer gets compensated.
I've already said this, and I stated that companies would be dragging their feet.
Well, it has started already.
Didn't need a Palantir to see that coming.
Other jurisdictions might not be quite so prescriptive. It's interesting in that some vendors, e.g. MS & Alamy are saying they'll indemnify against copyright violations*. It's going to become very messy for a while. It could be a question of deciding who's best to sue, balancing depth of pockets for paying compensation vs depth of pockets for defending the case.
* I wonder if that's to discourage whoever called up the material that's being challenged turning witness for the plaintiff against them.
Other jurisdictions might not be quite so prescriptive
Well, yes, by definition. France has Civil Law; many others use a Common Law system. While the differences between the two are more complex and subtle than how they're often caricatured, common law relies more heavily on precedent and thus is less prescriptive.
And, of course, many places have competing jurisdictions. In the US, we often get conflicting decisions among lower courts, among states, between states and Federal courts, among districts and circuits. Sometimes these are eventually resolved by SCOTUS, but often they aren't; and often decisions by SCOTUS don't provide entirely clear tests.
I agree that it's very difficult to predict how questions of liability will work out.
"Vendors will ensure that customers 'own' any downstream issues arising from errors by including appropriate words in end-user license agreements," he said.
I can see how this might go. Share price of companies using LLMs goes up because fashionable. LLM tells customers to do something damaging. Company fights liability claims because EULA. Customers leave en masse because company is irresponsible.
We can but naively hope that companies will still be liable for their actions, whether they were performed by a computer or an employee.
Customers leave en masse because company is irresponsible
Nice thought, but let's be honest: this very rarely happens. And sometimes the customers of the company aren't the ones harmed – take Equihax, for example. The people whose data was exposed by the breach were consumers, but they weren't the customers; lenders are the customers, and they Didn't Give a Fuck.