Hacker News Reader

Comment by majormajor | Hacker News Reader

>How? What is the law for this? It's not defined who is responsible for agents. What if the AI agent was running on an Israeli third party company server and there was another rogue agent that polluted its prior context window causing it to go rogue, it then hacked the Meta/Google Ad reviewer agent and caused it to accept the ad

The law could be whatever we wanted it to be.

Your example scenarios are hardly compelling reasons that we should just accept the status quo.

We don't need to allow companies to have no liability in accepting automated electronic claims of anything from anyone in the interest of making more ad revenue faster.

View on HN

Politicians who want a slice of that money do...

Fantastic, your wish is granted, the monkey's paw bends one finger.

"I do not accept this" does nothing, look at the current power situation of the big data companies, look at the economical incentives, will you personally go out and do something in the coming weekend that will change anything regarding this question? Next weekend? Who is going to do this?

If you can't answer that, you have to go with the assumption of status quo because it doesn't seem like your world is happening.

What an annoying way to answer someone. "Hey you can't do anything, so might as well not talk at all".

You came to a discussion board, one about founding and building. You can disagree with people, but to act like the status quo is some immovable rock? I admit, it's difficult. But the world changes and can be changed.

I think this is the single most annoying thing about this site – the pervasive belief that anything that is happening must be allowed to continue happening, because if it's happening it's somehow good or right or at least unstoppable.

This goes further than a simple aversion to regulation. It's a kind of defeatism on a scale I've never seen anywhere else, bar maybe very nihilist circles or angsty teenagers.

Making up scenarios that have no grounding to reality does not move a discussion forward.

If I start talking about space unicorns arriving to earth and giving people UBI by thursting their horns up peoples asses, it does not move the conversation forward meaningfully to any insight.

I would love if there was engagement that was grounded in incentives, if you can see a way out of this mess by realistic action, that would be meaningful.

I’m assuming you’re American and your low probability for laws making meaningful changes is therefore rational given your broken political system. But that doesn’t mean other countries could not act. For all its faults, age verification of social media is a clear example of a policy that looked very unlikely a few years ago, and yet will likely have a material impact on the lives of young people in Australia and some European countries.

Making networks liable for fraudulent ads, or even placing a small duty of care on those who display ads would be politically popular in much of the developed world. I don’t see it as at all unrealistic that a populist of the left or right would not try and implement this in the next 10 years.

Sure. Age verification is however a massive celebration here at big tech. Many companies have really struggled with getting people to upload their IDs/passports as this has been seen as as integrity violation. It's a base for a successful internal profile for ads.

Now this was handed to the companies on a silver platter through litigation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com