this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2026
1233 points (95.4% liked)

Fuck AI

7775 readers
2156 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Mniot@programming.dev 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Companies should be liable for what their LLM says.

[–] AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That seems technically not possible.

[–] Mniot@programming.dev 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

How would that be technically impossible? Or difficult? Companies are currently liable for the actions of the human agents, and I don't think the implementation needs to be different.

Maybe you mean socially impossible? Like, the major providers have a lot of money behind them and so why would they allow themselves to be liable for anything?

[–] AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well it much more unpredictable than a human. Liability would require AGI and the AGI agents to be predictable. But the LLM models are more like semi intelligent toddlers with an encyclopedic knowledge base. They can reason somewhat but understand little. With the right prompt, you can get wildly weird behavior.

You could demand that corporations are responsible to mitigate if something goes wrong - if it can be mitigated. Similar to a forum admin who needs to take down an illegal post after it's become known to them.

You can say for something like an application for taking medical notes there is liability. Because you have a choice to not use that, or to double check their ai assistant. Or with the company who sells the software if they make false claims or misleading marketing.

But in general? Who knows what they'll say lol.

LLMs generate language, but not a single human on earth understands how they reason. How they actually "think". We do not have a theory for that, not for human and not for LLMs. We know how it starts (text prediction) and figured out how to increase this massively and we understand the basic atoms just like we understand neurons - but we do not know how the actual "thinking" works. This is what makes LLMs actually miraculous (at least to me).

We can understand human minds through psychoanalysis. Obviously LLMs aren't sentient but they are also much less "bound by nature". They are fever dream machines that you can sort of put in a harness, or let rerun until some test criteria is fulfilled. But a user could take some AI model and retrain it or do all sorts of things. How could the LLM take responsibility? It would have to predict what happens outside of it's "black box"? It would literally have to understand what the question means and what it will be used for, where they are in what country with what legislation etc. That requires general knowledge / intelligence.

[–] Mniot@programming.dev 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I think what you're saying here is that by "it's not possible" you meant "it's not possible to hold companies liable for their chat-bots' words and still have those companies producing chat-bots." I agree. I think that would be the correct outcome.

There would be some very narrow spaces where LLMs would be usable, but mostly they would cease to pollute everything. Unrelated to AI, I'd like to see lots of regulation that blocks externalizing costs. For example, maybe it's also "impossible" for Walmart to operate in the US if they don't have all their employees getting state assistance. That would also be good. Maybe it's "impossible" to have a beef industry without massive pollution and deforestation. Also good. Et cetera.

[–] AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

I agree. I think that would be the correct outcome.

So your "suggestion" was disingenuous.