Clearly, given there have been cases about it already.
> Also, it seems you are fundamentally missing how AI is different. What would you expect a “regulator mandatory correction” to look like, a one sentence summary comes with a notice that it was corrected at some point?
Laws shouldn't care about mechanisms, they should care about outcomes. We can't allow ourselves to say "this tech makes ${legal obligation XYZ} impossible to perform, let us deploy it anyway": either you figure out how to solve for ${XYZ} or you don't get to deploy it.
> AI is also going to make regulators and bureaucrats totally superfluous if done properly, where AI simply “regulates” based on laws written in a clear text and open weight manner.
"If" is doing heavy lifting there — "if done properly", AI makes all human labour redundant. Nobody knows how far away "done properly" is.
Clearly, given there have been cases about it already.
> Also, it seems you are fundamentally missing how AI is different. What would you expect a “regulator mandatory correction” to look like, a one sentence summary comes with a notice that it was corrected at some point?
Laws shouldn't care about mechanisms, they should care about outcomes. We can't allow ourselves to say "this tech makes ${legal obligation XYZ} impossible to perform, let us deploy it anyway": either you figure out how to solve for ${XYZ} or you don't get to deploy it.
> AI is also going to make regulators and bureaucrats totally superfluous if done properly, where AI simply “regulates” based on laws written in a clear text and open weight manner.
"If" is doing heavy lifting there — "if done properly", AI makes all human labour redundant. Nobody knows how far away "done properly" is.