[frank_nitti]

Who is liable for the runtime behavior of the system, when handling users’ sensitive information?

If the person who is liable for the system behavior cannot read/write code (as “all coders have been replaced”), does Anthropic et al become responsible for damages to end users for systems its tools/models build? I assume not.

How do you reconcile this? We have tools that help engineers design and build bridges, but I still wouldn’t want to drive on an “autonomously-generated bridge may contain errors. Use at own risk” because all human structural engineering experts have been replaced.

After asking this question many times in similar threads, I’ve received no substantial response except that “something” will probably resolve this, maybe AI will figure it out

[WillPostForFood]

Who is responsible now when human coding errors leak user's sensitive information? I'm not seeing programmers held up as the responsible party. The companies who own the code are vaguely responsible, so it will be the same.

The bridge scenario is simply addressed: Licensed Engineer has to approve designs. Permitting review process has to review designs. Not sure it matters who drafted them initially.

[frank_nitti]

So perhaps this is just semantics - when we say that “coders have been completely replaced”, to me that means all humans capable of reading/writing code are replaced. In the bridge analogy this is the Licensed Engineer who actually understands and can critically evaluate a system design/implementation in depth.

If the only point being made by “all coders are replaced” is that humans aren’t manually typing the code from their keyboard anymore, I don’t think there’s much interesting to argue there, typing the code was never the hard part.