There were several responses to What I Would Do If I Were Working On AI Governance which focused on the liability section, and had similar criticisms. In particular, I’ll focus on this snippet as a good representative:

Making cars (or ladders or knives or printing presses or...) "robust to misuse", as you put it, is not the manufacturer's job.

The commenter calls manufacturer liability for misuse “an absurd overreach which ignores people's agency in using the products they purchase”. Years ago I would have agreed with that; it's an intuitive and natural view, especially for those of us with libertarian tendencies. But today I disagree, and claim that that's basically not the right way to think about product liability, in general.

With that motivation in mind: this post lays out some general principles for thinking about product liability, followed by their application to AI.

Principle 1: “User Errors” Are [...]

---

Outline:

(01:01) Principle 1: “User Errors” Are Often Design Problems

(02:50) Principle 2: Liability Is Not A Ban

(04:40) Principle 3: Failure Modes Of Coase’ Theorem

(06:26) Putting It All Together

(08:41) Hypothetical Example: Car Misuse

(10:36) Real Example: Worker's Comp

(13:57) Negative Examples: Hot Coffee, Malpractice

(16:38) Application to AI

---

First published:
December 10th, 2023

Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tQNfNCdWB5dboRNoZ/principles-for-product-liability-with-application-to-ai

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

“Principles For Product Liability (With Application To AI)” by johnswentworth

LessWrong (30+ Karma)