691
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2026
691 points (99.6% liked)
Technology
86683 readers
3284 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
See now this is interesting. I believe there is a difference between bad decisions and illegal decisions and what individuals can be held liable for. As long as a company using this “CEO ai can demonstrate reasonable frameworks were in place around the decisions it was acting upon, such as “hmm maybe we won’t eat the first born child of every customer or let’s not spend the companies full cash reserves on crack”, I think there are protections from liability.
This is self evidently true, or I'd be in jail for the relationships I had in my teens.
To be liable you need to have broken a law. So yes a person, or an AI, can make stupid but legal decisions, for which no legal liability accrues.
Not too sure where you're going with this though
This simply came out of me challenging the assertion in a comment higher up stating that a company still needed a CEO/person to be held liable for what the LLM could do. I didn’t think it was that black and white.