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
- OpenAI reportedly pulled 25% of production engineers to audit its own systems with Astra — rohanpaul_ai · 2026-09-17
- ITIF: safer AI without slowing progress — the 10% extinction figure has no empirical basis — castrotech · 2026-09-17
- Dan Selsam's AI risk statement called essential reading amid safety funding debate — JacquesThibs · 2026-09-17
- David Sacks tells Amodei and Altman to slow down voluntarily, not via regulation — mikeflache · 2026-09-17
- Bloomberg: The World's Most Reliable AI Detector Has a Human Problem — bloomberg · 2026-09-17
- FT: AI bosses' safety push sparks rift inside OpenAI and Anthropic — financialtimes · 2026-09-17