Blame the operator, not the weights: dev argues AI liability fines are for humans, not models
gerardsans · x · 2026-09-17
Reacting to a thread with @danprimack on AI-caused damages, gerardsans argues that if you let a probabilistic system roam around causing havoc, a fine is exactly what you should expect — but blaming the weights, a compressed file, or a next-token sampler makes you sound unhinged, and the law is clear you can't blame AI for your mess.
He adds he'd fully agree with framing such cases as negligence or incompetence on the part of the humans involved.
Related event: Commentator: Blame AI Operators, Not Model Weights(2 posts)→
More from Safety
- AI safety researcher: AI companies entirely lack this kind of effective human oversight — davidmanheim · 2026-11-02
- offprompt: MIT-licensed MCP server hands agents API keys without ever exposing them — Vast_Ad_7338 · 2026-11-02
- Epoch AI: open-weight GLM 5.3 exploited the patch gap to hack 6 Firefox releases at ~$1,000 each — rohanpaul_ai · 2026-11-02
- Marcel Böhme's paper asks why cybersecurity can never be solved, proposes vulnerability-guided hardening — mboehme_ · 2026-11-02
- CVSS 9.8 ingress-nginx flaw lets unauthenticated attackers get RCE and steal cluster Secrets — evilsocket · 2026-11-02
- Ant Group's Venus-DefakerOne2 hits 96% accuracy detecting AI-generated videos — inclusionAI · 2026-11-02