Law enforcement will seize and use computers and the data they hold as evidence to convict criminals, just like any other tool that they might be warranted to seize.
Courts will examine the evidence of what it did to determine what role it played in the offence and whether it supports the allegation.
Likewise police complaints authorities could do the same in principle against the police; if someone were to give them a warrant and the power to execute it.
If a thing happens in public that was unwarranted and can be traced back to a police force or how they deployed any equipment, they can be judicially reviewed* for any decision to deploy that bit of kit. It’s more a matter of will they actually be JR’d and will that be review be just and timely. * - in my country.
I don’t think it’s much different from how they deploy other tech like clubs and pepper spray, tear gas, tazers or firearms. If they have no fear of acting outwith their authority , that’s a problem.
In some ways it might be easier to have an ‘our word’ vs ‘their word’ defense when they shoot someone, compared to a computer program that might literally document the abuse of power in its code or log files.
“Oops i dropped my notebook”, is maybe easier than, “oops i accidentally deleted my local file and then sent a request to IT - that was approved by my manager - asking them to delete instead of restore any onsite or offsite backups”.
IT disagrees. Misbehaving hardware can be taken out back and shot.
We all remember what happened to the printer in Office Space
Damn it feels good to be a gangsta.
the AI decided ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Excuse me, you dropped this: \
No, I’m sorry, the AI has decided you don’t need that forearm, but you’re welcome to keep the hand.
Another reason to call me handsome!
It was a real struggle to upvote you after seeing your username. That’s the name of the furniture rental company that tried to screw me over a few months ago.
Oof, I’ve heard they’re as bad as payday loans, so I’ve never used them. Though I’ve also heard that rent-a-center is worse.
Cort
You the guy that trained Roland?
deleted by creator
Lemmy spoilers use a different syntax than Reddit
::: spoiler Roland spoiler He's dead! :::Roland spoiler
He’s dead!
Outside of law enforcement, this is certainly how shitty customer service policies get enforced. In other words, “Computer says no”.
The British Post office rolled out a hugely buggy piece of software that bankrupted small business owners, got some sentenced to years in prison, and caused thirteen people to commit suicide because “computers can’t be wrong”
Oh yeah! I forgot about that!
The case was settled for £58 million, leaving the claimants with £12 million after legal costs.
Ewwww
Here in Australia they rolled out an automated system to calculate welfare overpayments and issue debts. It didn’t quite work of course and hundreds of thousands of the poorest Australian were issued with false debts, some of whom died or committed suicide before they could be repaid. People still keep floating the idea of automation and AI in our welfare systems…
Not to be that guy but… Link?
Thank you
Not only UK’s fuckup, also Fujitsu’s.
Now where does this thought come from?
Do you not know what a computer is? It’s literally a digital logical accountant! Yeah yeah, we should probably blame the programmers and engineers instead when shit goes sideways, but now I think we need to also hold CEOs accountable when they decide to inject faulty AI into mission critical systems…
There’s a reason why license agreements often stay there there are no warranties express or implied, no guarantees, and no fitness for any particular purpose.
“This software is useless and should not be used by anyone for any purpose” is my favorite part of license agreements.
If a building collapses. You blame the people who built the walls and poured the concrete, or the ones who chose the materials and approved the project?
In any case, often programmers and engineers retain no rights to the software they worked on. So whoever profits from the software should also shoulder the blame.
Those in charge, that approve the continued use of proven faulty software, should take all the blame, after significant faults have been proven anyways.
I mean you have a point, but still, 1+2+3≠15, and a bag of Doritos is not a gun. When AI fucks up this badly, the real guilty parties
(my AI keyboard wanted to replace guilty with gullible BTW, and I’m using the FUTO keyboard no less),
the real guilty parties are the ones in charge that allow such proven faulty systems to continue running for mission critical systems.
Like fuck, a bag of Doritos is not a fucking gun!
You could hold developers of algorithms, logic and even symbolic AI accountable.
However, it’s a completely different story for AI based on deep neutral networks. After training they’re just a bunch of weights and parameters without individual meaning and it’s not a few, it’s billions or trillions of them. And almost none of them were individually set, they’re often randomly initialized and then automatically tuned by deep learning algorithms during training until the behavior / predictions of the neural net are “good enough”.
It’s practically impossible to review the network and when you test it you just get the result for the concrete test cases, you can’t interpolate or assume even slightly different cases will behave similarly. You also can’t fix an individual bug. You can just train again or more and this effort might fix the problem but it could also destroy something that worked before (catastrophic forgetting).
All technology has the potential to be both liberatory and oppressive, all that ever matters is who wields it and to what end.
Lewis Herber (Murray Bookchin) - Towards a Liberatory Technology
That’s why cops love using dogs too. Courts have ruled that dogs can’t lie. That means if a dog indicates you have contraband, then a search is warranted, even if nothing is found. This of course ignores that it is entirely possible the dog indicated contraband because the cop trained it to do so on command.
this is straight out of the book ‘Do Android Dream Of Electric Sheep’ later turned into the movie ‘iRobot’
Tap for spoiler
only humans can be convicted of murder, therefore if a robot kills someone, its nothing more than a common mechanical hazard.
We don’t jail the gun for murder.
I feel like you’re missing the point.
They’re not saying to jail computers, they’re saying be ware of political leaders using computers to abdicate responsibility.We shut down companies for it though, and what AI vendors are doing is basically selling the ability to turn job roles into “accountability sinks”, where your true value is in taking the fall for AI when it gets it wrong (…enough that someone successfully sues).
If you want to put it in gun terms: The AI vendors are selling a gun that automatically shoots at some targets but not others. The targets it recommends are almost always profitable in the short term, but not always legal. You must hire a person to sit next to the gun and stop it from shooting illegal targets. It can shoot 1000 targets per minute.
Sounds like a fun job if the acceptable failure rate is like, 50%
We also don’t give the murderer a free pass because they used a gun.
A tool is a tool, and the person who designed it or used it is responsible depending on why it caused a negative outcome. I know you clarified it later but it is so stupidly obvious I wanted to add to it.
deleted by creator
No, I agreed with you in a slightly different way.
Great reading comprehension.
deleted by creator
The gun isn’t running software in the background when humans are away either. See my other comment, when shit goes sideways, blame the programmers, engineers, and now the CEOs that decided to jam screwy AI up our collective asses…
We don’t jail gun manufacturers either.
When a tool is used to kill a human, the user of the tool is guilty.
So when a kid commits suicide because the Generative AI LLM agreed with him in a harmful way?
Edit: In before someone says something about how the gun manufacturers still shouldn’t be held accountable.
Gen AI LLM’s in this instance are products working as intended/designed, and are being used in a way that the manufacturer knows is harmful and admits is damaging. They also admit that there are no laws to safeguard persons against how the AI is designed, implemented etc and these things don’t even have warning labels.
Guns by contrast have lots of laws involving how and where they can be sold and accessed, as well as by whom, and with respect to informing the user of the dangers. You don’t sign a EULA or a TOS when you buy a gun, waiving your rights to sue. You don’t agree to only arbitration.
If a child shot themself, I’d blame the parents.
Keep 'em coming. I can do this all day.
I’ll agree with you there, I shot myself in the arm when I was only 3 with a pellet gun. My dad realized his mistake and kept all guns away from me, until age 10, when he took me out to shoot some bottles and cans, and teach me proper gun safety.
Yes that might have been an earlier childhood lesson than many parents might agree to, but he was proper about what and when he taught me. Like, aside from the obvious of keep the gun on safety and never point it at anyone or anything unless you intend to use it, who thinks of things like, don’t lean on a rifle with the barrel in the dirt? The dirt can and will clog the barrel and cause the gun to explode!
Anyways, back on point of AI…
Most parents aren’t just up and giving their kids guns, but major corporations are shoving this AI shit up everyone’s asses, as much as they can anyways, knowing good and well that one AI model says 1+2+3=15 and another AI model is suggesting people suffering pain to use heroin…
So what’s the answer, avoid AI? Well fuck Google then…
They knew what I meant and chose to ignore the meaning to avoid the question.
Why can guns be something that can be responsibly used but AI cannot?
One can simply decide to never use a gun.
You don’t get that option with AI these days if you simply want to Google something, they force you to use it. Google, Alexa, Siri, fuck our own US government is now using Grok!
You are so close to getting it…
Okay, I’ll bite.
What am I missing here NewPerspective?
When a human dies because a tool was designed with needless danger, the manufacturer is often prosecuted.
But again, I think you’re missing the point.
We don’t jail gun manufacturers either.
Be a lot cooler if you did
When guns have no legal uses, this is a direction we should go. Until then, this holds people accountable for other people misusing their product.
In a chain of responsibility, the last person who’s accountable should be punished, not the first.
deleted by creator
Blame the programmers? Yeah, no. The software is owned by the company, blame them.
- Google is built on Android
- Android is built on Linux
- Linux is open source
So, I think that the open source developers should file a class action lawsuit for stealing their code.
Go ahead, ask Linus Torvalds, I bet he’s not exactly happy with the current trajectory…
This is unironically one of the main drivers of AI. As soon as all crucial social systems are inundated with AI, the built-in bias will be excused as “minor glitches” of the system, but the real reason was always a total lack of accountability.
Yeah, not like people in power, who are held accountable all the time!
“While computers are mechanical, the processes must be dictated and implemented by a human. Therefore, the only person culpable when a computer does something, is the human who wrote the instruction set, code, or algorithm.”
If we interpreted the problem with human culpability and consequences, a whole lot of bugs would stop disappearing from software right quick.
If a mistake in my code exposes me to criminal investigation, I’m getting a new job.
Same argument for cars
