> If you shot up a public area and then tried to claim that was a business activity, you would obviously not have an argument. It isn't plausible on its face. So I'm really not sure what point you're making.

I'm running a terrorist training simulation and unwitting participants entered the area! Whoops! You haven't addressed the point of a company (composed of people) creating something that exceeds its bounds. Is a company liable if they are working on nuclear power and delete the city they are operating out of? Why would a software company be treated differently when it causes harm to a third party?

> It is not uncommon to incorporate when doing that. The idea is if you fuck up their site somehow (or more likely - they claim you did) they can't try and go after your personal bank account or your car or your house. Only what is held by your company.

This is a common misconception. A corporation doesn’t protect you from personal liability. If you intentionally or negligently damage someone’s property they can sue you personally. In many cases they can sue both, and it’s easier to collect from an established business, but that doesn’t do you any good as a freelancer.

Nuisance lawsuits aren’t much of an issue because insurance covers the legal defense and indemnifies you

You're talking about limited liability companies, which is a legal structure relevant for civil claims.

Someone committing crimes "on behalf" of a company is not protected by the corporate veil and absolutely will get prosecuted individually (well, for small companies -- big companies get to play with different rules, which was the point GP was making).

Also the corporate veil is not absolute, it can get pierced in a few cases, and not everyone incorporates when they do contract work (in which case you need indemnity / private liability insurance).

The best is that the article frames it as "Autonomous hacking is here. Governments are not ready". As if someone didn't authorizing turning the damn thing on.

> TO LOSE CONTROL of one artificial intelligence may be regarded as misfortune. To lose two looks like carelessness. Lose four, and people may start to wonder whether the problem lies with AI itself.

No fingers pointed at the company, just the "AI". Funny how that works.

Reminds me of the time Cheney shot his friend while quail hunting, and his friend said he was "deeply sorry for all that Vice President Cheney and his family have had to go through".

But if you told an embodied AI to do a home cleaning task knowing it's a possibility it will decide to pick up a gun and start spraying bullets, then society has an interest in holding you liable.

Might not want to, but perhaps still should.

I don't want my dog to bite a young child, but when it does, I'm still liable, whether I want to or not.

So we can have vicarious liability for banal stuff like contractors but not for AI?

You might not want to be liable, but you absolutely should be.

I might not want to be held liable if my car accelerates uncontrollably, but i am until i successfully sue the manufacturer for the defects.

Demand ai cleaners that are capable of being held accountable, or accept the risk you choose. Or just clean your own house.

Because a coverup would be worse. The labs have been talking about AI safety and transparency for years, so if they start to cover up problems it's asking for (unpredictable) regulation.

The unpredictability should be constrained though. Just like how you are never supposed to point a gun at someone/something you want to exist. Ever.

"Ghost guns" exist, too, but we still try to prosecute reckless use of firearms to the extent possible.

That's nothing to do with AI though. Attributing cyber attacks is hard. We know this and people have experience doing it.