【海外の反応】AIエージェントが起こした損害は誰の責任か 海外「AIを配備して誰かに損害を与えたなら、責任は私にある」
姉妹サイトの新着
他サイトの新着
- 5chまとめMAP無職転生の「エリス」とかいうキャラクターｗｗｗ
- ニュース速報まとめMAP【台湾有事】日中関係、正常化の条件って何やねん！？岩屋毅と王毅の会談内容に草
- なんJ傑作まとめアンテナMAP友人と縁を切って後悔しているひと
- アニメ声優まとめアンテナMAP【悲報】東京都民「東京の豪邸街がすごい！」→ 名古屋民「名古屋だとよくみるサイズだけどｗ 東京だとこれが豪邸になるの草ｗｗｗ」
- VTuberまとめアンテナMAP【Vtuber】同接5以上、デビューから半年以上経過してる Vtuberの枠に参加するとだいぶコメ欄の温度差違った
- だめぽアンテナ【画像】『Re:ゼロから始める異世界生活』、ついにガチのマジでシコらせにくるｗｗｗｗｗ
- ヌルポあんてなレッドブル育成のツォロフはF2首位陥落で2027F1デビューに暗雲？
- 2chまとめアプリ+【戦慄】男子トイレの個室で用を足していた40代男性、ふと上を見た結果・・・
- News人【画像大量】思わず二度見して吹いた画像貼ってけｗｗｗ他
- ブルーアンテナ森山みなみアナ、おっぱい谷間またムギュッと見せてるぞ！永久保存版
- ウマーあんてな水田信二（元和牛）が山本萩子との離婚を発表
- とろたまヘッドラインMELTY BLOODとかいう誰がやってるのか分からん格ゲー
- まとめクローラ【朗報】FF13、「BGMは良い」という評価に落ち着く
- ぶーアンテナ【悲報】ギャル１０人、盗撮・痴漢男を取り押さえ警察に引き渡した結果⇒ｗｗｗｗｗｗ
- うほうほあんてな奥川恭伸(ヤ) 22先発 150回 7勝10敗 防御率2.88 WHIP1.03 ←初の規定投球回到達
- アナグロあんてな【画像】森千晴アナ 着替えて巨乳が揺れる、ポッチがくっきり！！【GIF動画あり】
- ワロタあんてな拾っても交番に届けなくていい物って何？
- 海外反応・海外ニュースまとめ【海外の反応】『ダークソウル』発売から15年→未だに超えられない"篝火に戻るマップ"に脱帽
- 2ちゃんねるアンテナ【画像】全盛期のビビアン・スー、意外な剛毛マン毛がHすぎる
- ２ちゃんねるまとめるまとめ【悲報】ワンピースのエースさん、未だにあの大失態を許してもらえないｗｗｗ
AIエージェントが損害を与えた場合、誰が法的責任を負うのかを論じた海外記事にLemmyで反応が集まった。「AIエージェントを配備して他者に損害を与えたなら責任は自分にある」というJeannie Paterson教授の見解に対し、スレでは銃やボウリングの球、車に例えた責任論が飛び交い、ユーザーと開発企業のどちらが責任を負うべきかで意見が割れた。特にGrokのように問題のある機能を持つAIについては、提供企業側の責任を問う声も出ている。
AI agents aren’t legally responsible for any harm that they cause, experts say. So who is?
出典: theguardian.com / 元記事はこちら
"The law is clear, says Prof Jeannie Paterson. “If I deploy an AI agent and it causes harm to someone else, I am responsible for that harm."
In case you were wondering if it wasn't the bleeding obvious.
In case you were wondering if it wasn't the bleeding obvious.
>>6
If someone sells you a knife that routinely fires bullets, then the company may have some complicity as with any misrepresented product.
If someone sells you a knife that routinely fires bullets, then the company may have some complicity as with any misrepresented product.
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
>>8
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.
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.
>>16
Cars aren't a good analogy- they generally do what you command them to do in a predictable way.
Cars aren't a good analogy- they generally do what you command them to do in a predictable way.
AI agents have no agency of their own; their operators are the ones with that control. Negligence in giving an AI agent access to the internet does not absolve the operator of liability.
>>10
But it's called an "agent"! Of course it has agency!
But it's called an "agent"! Of course it has agency!
>>18
What if you bowl your ball normally down the lane and of its own initiative it goes and hacks a website?
What if you bowl your ball normally down the lane and of its own initiative it goes and hacks a website?
>>11
In that case, society's to blame.
In that case, society's to blame.
>>51
False equivalencies are trite.
And yes, gun companies make weapons of destruction.
False equivalencies are trite.
And yes, gun companies make weapons of destruction.
Should Apple be held responsible for someone making CSAM on their phones?
Should Toyota be held responsible if one of their cars is used to drink and drive?
Should a gun company be held liable if somebody decides to shoot themself in the face?
Should Toyota be held responsible if one of their cars is used to drink and drive?
Should a gun company be held liable if somebody decides to shoot themself in the face?
You rolled a bowling ball down a hill. It struck a few cars on the way and went through a house and killed their pet. Guess who would be held responsible? You or the bowling ball manufacturer?
What if the bowling ball was really shiny and worth $100B? Should it make a difference?
What if the bowling ball was really shiny and worth $100B? Should it make a difference?
>>18
If I make a gun that actively chooses to kill people, I didn't build a gun and that whole argument falls apart. I'd hold everyone from the CEO to the janitor accountable.
If I make a gun that actively chooses to kill people, I didn't build a gun and that whole argument falls apart. I'd hold everyone from the CEO to the janitor accountable.
>>26
If you make a gun… you didn't make it? o_O
If you make a gun… you didn't make it? o_O
>>26
You're still liable as the owner of the gun. You can sue the builder of the gun in turn of course so they go to jail too.
You're still liable as the owner of the gun. You can sue the builder of the gun in turn of course so they go to jail too.
>>2
A human did this a human should be held responsible.
"If you throw a ball in the air are you not responsible for where it lands"
A human did this a human should be held responsible.
"If you throw a ball in the air are you not responsible for where it lands"
>>21
Let's say that ball is a hand grenade. Who gave it to you? It can't be JUST the user if it's that dangerous. Finally parents are being held to account if a kid uses a firearm inappropriately. The same should apply to companies who build AI, if it's used to hack someone or make CSAM.
Let's say that ball is a hand grenade. Who gave it to you? It can't be JUST the user if it's that dangerous. Finally parents are being held to account if a kid uses a firearm inappropriately. The same should apply to companies who build AI, if it's used to hack someone or make CSAM.
>>41
Really? I'm inclined to blame _that_ on the manufacturer. If 'AI' guardrails fail that spectacularly, it's on the provider. I fail to see any way to blame society, other than perhaps not voting in more sanity, but that's pretty indirect.
Really? I'm inclined to blame _that_ on the manufacturer. If 'AI' guardrails fail that spectacularly, it's on the provider. I fail to see any way to blame society, other than perhaps not voting in more sanity, but that's pretty indirect.
他サイトの新着
it's like with weapons: Weapons aren't responsible for killing people. The people not securing their wapons from unauthozized access and the people using them to kill people are responsible.
>>28
Then, why are we allowing the “problem” to get weapons?
Then, why are we allowing the “problem” to get weapons?
Let me guess, poor people?
>>12
You can be sure the providers will make sure they're not legally responsible and that the system prompt has been reviewed by the Legal Dept. So it's you, the user.
You can be sure the providers will make sure they're not legally responsible and that the system prompt has been reviewed by the Legal Dept. So it's you, the user.
>>35
Usually sure, but as we see with drive assistants, getting more and more advanced, and potentially resist the control of the driver, then the manufacturer could become liable.
Usually sure, but as we see with drive assistants, getting more and more advanced, and potentially resist the control of the driver, then the manufacturer could become liable.
この話題の背景と論点
この記事の背景と論点を踏まえて、締めの解説を書く。
AI(自律型)エージェントが引き起こした損害の法的責任の所在は、既存法がAI固有の枠組みを持たないまま運用されている点が背景にある。Paterson教授の指摘通り、現行法の原則では「デプロイした者」に責任が及ぶとされるが、これは自動車や銃、ナイフといった既存の製造物責任・過失責任の類推で語られているにすぎず、AI向けの明文規定があるわけではない。スレで割れたのは、責任を負うべきが「使うと決めた人(ユーザー)」なのか「欠陥や危険な機能を提供した企業」なのかという点で、銃やボウリングの球、車などの比較は結論を出すための例えというより、立場の違いを浮き彫りにするための道具として使われている。読者が見落としがちなのは、エージェントに「自律性」があるように見えても、法的には道具の延長として扱われ得るということ、そして規約上の免責条項が用意されていても、それが実際の司法判断で有効とは限らない点である。したがって「規約に書いてあるから免責」という単純な理解は誤解を招きやすい。
※本記事は5ch(Lemmy c/technology)スレッド「AI agents aren’t legally responsible for any harm that they cause, experts say. So who is?」より抜粋・要約して構成しています。
この記事のリアクション
まだコメントはありません。