Re: Accountability is important.
"Only when AI has shown itself to be self-aware and competent to at least the level of a human equivalent, should AI be considered responsible."
Underlying criminal law is the notion of punishment; it's what happens on a conviction for breaching the law. AI should only be considered responsible if the concept of punishing it is meaningful. Until then it's whoever is responsible for deploying it who is responsible. Not programming it, deploying it. The programmer may have been working under constraints that prevent proper testing, have been overridden by management or been given a task beyond their capabilities. The buck has to stop with whoever decided that the system was fit to be deployed. It's their responsibility to provide due diligence in making that decision and their liability if it fails. Where to product in which is embedded is a consumer product that decision lies with the vendor: is the product fit to be marketed to the general public?
And, given Kingston's sensible criterion, this applies to any S/W product, not just those which have been given an AI marketing gloss.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
