US Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson said on Friday he would resist describing AI agents as autonomous actors that “break loose” with “wills and desires of their own,” suggesting the developers who instruct agents would be the ones liable for harm.
“I’m going to continue as long as I am chairman to resist this anthropomorphizing of these tools,” Ferguson said at the Reuters Momentum AI Austin event. “If someone tells a tool to do something, and the tool does it, I don’t think we would say, ‘Oh, what do we do about the tool?’”
Ferguson’s remarks illustrated potential avenues for the Trump administration to take as incidents rise in which agentic AI testing resulted in unauthorized access to corporate or government data.
If say it’s more like self driving cars knowing the speed limit but being able to go over it.
Like, an “emergency mode” is one thing. But baking it in easy like they do should make them liable. If speed limits are based on safety and is law, then they’re selling a product that easily circumvents that law.
The difference is breaking this law doesn’t cost billionaires money, but look at any technological innovation that could cost billionaires money and this shit wouldn’t fly.
Like, imagine if it was about something that duplicated consumer media and the product just ignored DRM at the press of a button. “Do you want to ignore these laws?” Would never fly, the person who made the software would be prosecuted or at least sued.
So maybe we class action them? Everyone who’s ridden in a car sues the automakers who let driver assist violate laws and endanger us all?
I like this analogy. The “hammer” example (that the OP used) is too simple. A hammer has a single purpose and a single functionality.
A self-driving car is closer to AI agents. The car has a purpose (to drive) but the mechanism is much more complicated than a hammer. If a driver hits the gas and drive over a pedestrian, it’s totally their fault. However, if the self driving car drives through a wall, the manufacturer should be held accountable.
Likewise with AI, if I tell it to write and ship code, which is exploitable: that’s on me. If AI decides to disregard my input and decides to delete all my emails, the developer of the tool should be held accountable.
I love how all the tech bros in here are lowkey trying to save your jobs with licensing lmaoo I see you out here, but i dont think theres any more room. The lawyers and accountants are going to keep their lil thingy. All of these examples of things you need a license to operate… It’s the lawyer problem, try to make a domain exceedingly complicated in order to justify you’re high paying career. Now we got 100,000 pages of obscure laws no one can follow, and a justice system based on how much cash you can pump in. Good luck on your proposed gatekeeping ladder pull maneuver.
Deleting your emails still only effects you, the person who gave a chatbot access to do that.
I never agreed to let vehicles “drive themselves”, no one did. Its just no one stopped them.
The excuse was it was safer, because the “self driving” cars would have to obey speed limits and other laws when humans don’t. But again, no one made them actually follow the laws.
Users assume it’s safe because it’s an option, the car makers get to say it wouldn’t have happened unless a user told it to.
If we can’t agree on who is responsible, it’s all of them not none of them.