FTC chair suggests AI developers should be liable for conduct of agents

hckrnws

FTC chair suggests AI developers should be liable for conduct of agents

(reuters.com)

by usernomdeguerre

blitzar
055m
I suggest drivers should be liable for conduct of their cars
janalsncm
17h
Going beyond the headline there are three things in this article:
1) FTC chairman says AI agents will be treated just like any other tool (“resist anthropomorphizing”)
2) Studying enforcement of rules around personalized (“surveillance”) pricing, specifically rideshare, airplanes and food delivery
3) Public comment period open now on new rule to punish companies like Meta and Google that advertise scams.
The last one seems closest to happening but it’s still just a public comment period so it might die.
1. downrightmike
  07h
  Didn't meta make $10B in 2025 by scammers using their AI tools to scam our parents? Don't worry guys, meta will just lobby and bribe everyone to keep that revenue. Also don't worry about giving their new ai assitant full access to your bank account and credit cards email phone etc. nothing bad will happen
anfogoat
01h
Suggests? How bold.
etchalon
08h
Yes. Duh.
verdverm
19h
Rule 3, humans remain responsible
https://susam.net/inverse-laws-of-robotics.html
> Humans must remain fully responsible for decisions involving AI and accountable for the consequences arising from its use. If a negative outcome occurs as a result of following AI-generated advice or decisions, it is not sufficient to say, 'the AI told us to do it'. AI systems do not choose goals, deploy themselves or bear the costs of failure. Humans and organisations do. An AI system is a tool and like any other tool, responsibility for its use rests with the people who decide to rely on it.
1. wredcoll
  03h
Avicebron
59h
I mean there aren't many good options are there, AI can't be held accountable and face meaningful consequences for it's actions. Therefore, where consequences are appropriate, who is ultimately responsible for "their actions?"
1. missingcolours
  18h
  Imagine that AI is just another tool. Imagine it's a weed whacker. Who is liable if a weed whacker destroys property?
  Well, it depends. If I'm using it according to the instructions and the tool does something it's not supposed to, the manufacturer is liable. If I take a weed whacker and start cutting fiber lines with it, I'm liable.
  So in accordance with standard liability practice, AI labs ought to be liable for unintended actions their products take, and the user for illegal actions they direct the product to take.
  The slight caveat is that a model just produces text. It can't hack anything on its own. I would say that the product in this scenario would be the harness/agent - if you build a system that takes untrusted input (LLM output) and takes potentially dangerous action based on it, well, that sounds dangerous? Possibly negligent?