gadsnprch parent
Thanks for responding. Solving it will involve public discourse. The negative externality will not be forever ignored and frantic, knee-jerk, legislative or judicial solutions are rarely optimal. Everyone, including Anthropic, benefits from starting the culpability discussion now, ideally in a context just like this. Maybe that’s exactly what Anthropic is doing by framing this news as “we stopped some cybercrime” rather than “we were involved in some cybercrime.” But smart people shouldn’t fall for such a blatant shifting of corporate liability onto the public, imo, and that’s why I’m confused. I must be missing something fundamental.
What kind of solution do you foresee here?
Well, if it were not for the fact that our two party system is controlled by donors and lobbyists I would hope for a legislative solution. If your product is used to defraud people, you have to reimburse the victims seems like a reasonable sort of law to enact. Such legislation would encourage companies to do more than give vague lip service to “guardrails.” I’ll admit that I’m not an anarchocapitalist who thinks we need to put all our resources, and the resources of future generations via overspending, into building ever more impactful AI, so maybe I don’t belong here. The ai worshippers have been making claims for several years now about ai curing cancer and solving all our problems: where’s the beef?