this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2024
497 points (93.8% liked)
Technology
59589 readers
3394 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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?
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.