this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2026
74 points (97.4% liked)
Australian Politics
1877 readers
131 users here now
A place to discuss Australia Politics.
Rules
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone.
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australia (general)
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you are sloppy with gun safety, and your fully loaded ak47 drops on the floor and mows down a class of school kids, we wouldn’t persecute the weapons manufacturer either.
I don't know the proper legal term, but there's something like a reasonable expectation for how a product will be used.
Take something like autonomous vehicles. If a passenger hops in a Waymo and says, "take me to the airport", it's hardly reasonable to hold the rider responsible if the cab mows down 15 children on the way, but it does seem like something Waymo, the corporation, should be held responsible for. It is very reasonable to expect Waymo to have put precautions in place to prevent that sort of thing.
The question is, when it comes to modern AI agents, it's kind of the wild west, legally speaking. Can we hold an LLM developer responsible for harm their AI agents do? I can see a lot of room for that, but it seems like the legal system just isn't there yet.
In this case we don’t even have to worry about that distinction because the sloppy human operator and the manufacturer that’s developing one of the most consequential technologies in human history are one and the same and behaving like they’re the top cast of the next Mad Max instalment.
They are both being reckless and they have proven understanding how how dangerous it is.
The way systems will infinitely less societal consequences are tested is by building a replica interal sandbox of the real world with fake medicare records and then see if the stupid thing would go out and ignore guardrails and do the hacking.
The culpability lies solely in how (insert whatever machine here) is operated. These fuckwits are ignoring so many established precedents on testing safety established in all kinds of risk-to-life fields like medical science, aerospace engineering, car safety testing, plenty of conventional IT systems.
If the PM had a backbone he would issue a national security order banning all AI agent traffic and block access to open AI until the investigation is concluded.
Yeah. That. But the law hasn't caught up to enforce that sort of thing, hence the article.
The law doesn’t have to have caught up yet. That’s why governments have an executive branch.
Why not both? If the manufacturer doesn't install a safety switch that allows a foreseeable harm to occur, I'd say they're partially responsible too.
Sig P320