When I read the title I sarcastically thought “Oh no, why is AI deciding to create fake historical photos? Is this the first stage of the robot apocalypse?”
I find the title mildly annoying because it putting the blame on the tool and ignoring that people are using it to do bad things. I find a lot of discussions about AI do this. It is like people want to avoid that it is how people are using and training the tool is the issue.
At this point that’s the equivalent of complaining about people calling gun violence a problem because “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. If you hand the public easy access to a dangerous tool then of course they’re going to use it to do dangerous things. It’s important to recognize the inherent danger of said tool.
Isn’t the tool part of the issue? If you sell bomb-making parts to someone who then blows up a preschool with them, aren’t you in some way culpable for giving them the tool to do it? Even if you only intended it to be used in limestone quarries?
That really depends on whether the bomb making part is specific to bombs, and if their purchase of that item could be considered legitimately suspicious. Many over the counter products have the potential to be turned into bombs with enough time or effort.
If a murderer uses a hammer, do you think the hardware store they purchased the hammer from should be liable?
You can make crude chemical weapons by mixing bleach with other household items. Should the supermarket be liable for people who use their products in ways they never intended?
Maybe if the tool’s singular purpose was for killing. I think guns might be a better metaphor there. Explosives have legitimate uses and if you took the proper precautions to vet your customers then it’d be hard to blame you if someone convincingly forged credentials, for example.
I would say the supplier is culpable if the tool supplied is made for the purpose of the harm intended or if the supplier is giving the tool to the person who does the harm with the explicit intent for that person to use it for that harm. For example, giving someone an AK-47 to shoot someone or a handgun/rifle with the intent that the user shoot someone with it. If the supplier gives someone a tool to use for one legit purpose but the user uses it for a harmful purpose instead, I don’t think you can blame the supplier for that. For example, giving someone a knife to cut food with, and then the user goes and stabs someone with it instead. That’s entirely on the user and nobody else.
To clarify, instead of intent a better word may be knowledge. If the supplier knows that the user is going to use the tool for harm but gives the tool to the user anyway, then the supplier shares culpability. If the supplier does not (reasonably) know, either through invincible ignorance (the supplier could not reasonably know) or the user’s deception (lying to the supplier), then the supplier is not culpable.
When I read the title I sarcastically thought “Oh no, why is AI deciding to create fake historical photos? Is this the first stage of the robot apocalypse?” I find the title mildly annoying because it putting the blame on the tool and ignoring that people are using it to do bad things. I find a lot of discussions about AI do this. It is like people want to avoid that it is how people are using and training the tool is the issue.
At this point that’s the equivalent of complaining about people calling gun violence a problem because “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. If you hand the public easy access to a dangerous tool then of course they’re going to use it to do dangerous things. It’s important to recognize the inherent danger of said tool.
Isn’t the tool part of the issue? If you sell bomb-making parts to someone who then blows up a preschool with them, aren’t you in some way culpable for giving them the tool to do it? Even if you only intended it to be used in limestone quarries?
That really depends on whether the bomb making part is specific to bombs, and if their purchase of that item could be considered legitimately suspicious. Many over the counter products have the potential to be turned into bombs with enough time or effort.
If a murderer uses a hammer, do you think the hardware store they purchased the hammer from should be liable?
You can make crude chemical weapons by mixing bleach with other household items. Should the supermarket be liable for people who use their products in ways they never intended?
Exactly this, many times over.
Most tools with legitimate uses also have unethical uses.
Everything needed to make a bomb can be found at your local Walmart. Nobody blames the gas companies when something gets molotoved.
Maybe if the tool’s singular purpose was for killing. I think guns might be a better metaphor there. Explosives have legitimate uses and if you took the proper precautions to vet your customers then it’d be hard to blame you if someone convincingly forged credentials, for example.
I would say the supplier is culpable if the tool supplied is made for the purpose of the harm intended or if the supplier is giving the tool to the person who does the harm with the explicit intent for that person to use it for that harm. For example, giving someone an AK-47 to shoot someone or a handgun/rifle with the intent that the user shoot someone with it. If the supplier gives someone a tool to use for one legit purpose but the user uses it for a harmful purpose instead, I don’t think you can blame the supplier for that. For example, giving someone a knife to cut food with, and then the user goes and stabs someone with it instead. That’s entirely on the user and nobody else.
So the potential to do harm should never be considered?
To clarify, instead of intent a better word may be knowledge. If the supplier knows that the user is going to use the tool for harm but gives the tool to the user anyway, then the supplier shares culpability. If the supplier does not (reasonably) know, either through invincible ignorance (the supplier could not reasonably know) or the user’s deception (lying to the supplier), then the supplier is not culpable.