[treesciencebot]

Liability. Till we solve this, we cant really give AI any real responsibilities.

[digging]

Human CEOs generally aren't held liable for their actions, so why would AI need to be? Once again, I think we're just smoothing out a wrinkle here.

[SauntSolaire]

I know this is more of a throwaway cynical quip, but this is a biased line of thinking. CEO's are, for obvious reasons, more likely to do things they wouldn't be held liable for, versus do things which would see them likely to be punished. So executives might, for example, get away with things by successfully skirting the line of legality.

Say an AI CEO blatantly crosses this line, now who is liable?

[disqard]

I think as long as the LLM can "take full responsibility", there should be no objections from the shareholders.

Imagine saving an extra $50m per year? Yes, please!

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

It is already used widely across industries where one would think people should be more conservative ( healthcare transcription services come to mind, but it is hardly the only example of this ). As always in America, only lawsuits will shows us how the dust has settled.