FTC chair suggests AI developers should be liable for conduct of agents

FTC chair suggests AI developers should be liable for conduct of agents(reuters.com)

17 points by usernomdeguerre 2 hours ago | 7 comments

janalsncm 40 minutes ago |

Going beyond the headline there are three things in this article:

1) FTC chairman says AI agents will be treated just like any other tool (“resist anthropomorphizing”)

2) Studying enforcement of rules around personalized (“surveillance”) pricing, specifically rideshare, airplanes and food delivery

3) Public comment period open now on new rule to punish companies like Meta and Google that advertise scams.

The last one seems closest to happening but it’s still just a public comment period so it might die.

downrightmike 38 minutes ago | |

Didn't meta make $10B in 2025 by scammers using their AI tools to scam our parents? Don't worry guys, meta will just lobby and bribe everyone to keep that revenue. Also don't worry about giving their new ai assitant full access to your bank account and credit cards email phone etc. nothing bad will happen

etchalon 1 hour ago |

Yes. Duh.

Avicebron 2 hours ago |

I mean there aren't many good options are there, AI can't be held accountable and face meaningful consequences for it's actions. Therefore, where consequences are appropriate, who is ultimately responsible for "their actions?"

missingcolours 1 hour ago | |

Imagine that AI is just another tool. Imagine it's a weed whacker. Who is liable if a weed whacker destroys property?

Well, it depends. If I'm using it according to the instructions and the tool does something it's not supposed to, the manufacturer is liable. If I take a weed whacker and start cutting fiber lines with it, I'm liable.

So in accordance with standard liability practice, AI labs ought to be liable for unintended actions their products take, and the user for illegal actions they direct the product to take.

The slight caveat is that a model just produces text. It can't hack anything on its own. I would say that the product in this scenario would be the harness/agent - if you build a system that takes untrusted input (LLM output) and takes potentially dangerous action based on it, well, that sounds dangerous? Possibly negligent?

m4rtink 1 hour ago | |

Both those who developped it & those controlling it - simple as that.

downrightmike 37 minutes ago | |

Morris should be repaid for the fines he was levied for his internet worm released on accident then.