责任、监管与 AI 的新虚假二分法
Liability, regulation, and AI’s new false dichotomy
Gary Marcus 批评科技自由意志主义右翼的一种新论调：一边主张 AI 公司应为造成的损害承担责任，一边把责任当作反对监管的理由。他指出，没有适配 AI 时代的监管，责任追究毫无意义；参议员 Josh Hawley 已同时支持责任与监管，而投资人 David Sacks 等人可能意在保护自身在 AI 公司的投资。
正文
当前显示原文，中文全文译文尚未就绪。
Listener beware
We absolutely need to hold AI companies liable for the damage they cause. I wrote about this in my book Taming Silicon Valley, pointing to what many others have long written about it. I am in full agreement with Senator Josh Hawley on this tweet from earlier today, too:
But I am here today to call attention to a growing trend: people on the technolibertarian right calling for liability in AI (which is totally reasonable), but then using that as if it were an argument against regulation.
Take this interview with Joe Lonsdale, amplified last night by David Sacks,
The first part of what Lonsdale says is true (companies should be held liable for the damage they cause, not that the Trump administration has done anything about OpenAI’s string of security incidents), but the attack on regulation simply doesn’t follow.
And indeed, as Mark Cuban pointed out in reply to Sacks, “Presumes we can pass new laws specific to AI. Or, figure out how to apply current laws to AI. Who do you trust to do this the right way?” Without the right regulation, suited for the brave new AI world we now live in now, liability is pointless.
Reading Sacks’s tweet led me to post this:
Karen Kornbluh, former Director of the National AI Office and before that former Deputy Principal Deputy CTO to the White House, quickly amplified my own tweet and broadened the point:
I don’t entirely understand why this isn’t obvious.
§
The argument that liability might be sufficient in itself is hardly new, of course. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) once probed me along exactly these lines, back when I testified before the U.S. Senate in May 2023, asking me whether liability (and associated litigation) might be sufficient on its own.
It was fun and an interesting exchange, maybe the first time these issues were discussed with respect to AI in the US Senate, and very relevant now, three years later:
§
Whatever Hawley may have thought then—maybe he was just asking questions to probe the arguments—he certainly has by now become a firm champion of both liability and regulation His bipartisan AI framework (which I mentioned yesterday) combined with today’s tweet makes that amply clear.
Investors like Sacks may want to protect their investments in AI companies by shielding them from regulation, but the rest of us shouldn’t be fooled.