[elashri]

When a corporate does something good, a lot of executives and people inside will go and claim credit and will demand/take bounces.

If something bad happened against any laws, even if someone got killed, we don't see them in jail.

I don't defend both positions, I am just saying that is not far from how the current legal framework works.

[eru]

> If something bad happened against any laws, even if someone got killed, we don't see them in jail.

We do! In many jurisdictions, there are lots of laws that pierce the corporate veil.

[cj]

its surprisingly easy to get away with murder (literally and figuratively) without piercing the corporate veil if you understand the rules of the game. Running decisions through a good law firm also “helps” a lot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil

[kingstnap]

Well the important concept missing there that makes everything sort of make sense is due diligence.

If your company screws up and it is found out that you didn't do your due diligence then the liability does pass through.

We just need to figure out a due diligence framework for running bots that makes sense. But right now that's hard to do because Agentic robots that didn't completely suck are just a few months old.

[gostsamo]

No, it isnot hard. You are 100% responsible for the actions of your AI. Rather simple, I say.

[hvb2]

> If your company screws up and it is found out that you didn't do your due diligence then the liability does pass through.

In theory, sure. Do you know many examples? I think, worst case, someone being fired is the more likely outcome

[jacquesm]

It's easy: your bot: your liability.

[jacquesm]

Hence:

> It's externalization on the personal level

Instead of the corporate level.