ai liability

Bilingual

When physicians and AI work together, who is accountable?
2 months ago
- AI in healthcare is advancing from assistive tools to autonomous decision-makers, raising patient-safety risks and liability issues.
- Current medical liability frameworks are inadequate for AI systems that use black-box reasoning, making it hard to assign blame when harm occurs.
- Clear liability frameworks are needed, modeled after graded levels used in aviation and self-driving cars, based on autonomy, automation, and operational scope.
- Seven levels of medical AI capabilities are proposed, ranging from Level 0 (informational) to Level 4 (AI-triggered human oversight), each with specific regulatory and accountability considerations.
- Existing tools (e.g., sepsis alerts) are at low levels, but future systems may operate with minimal human input, complicating responsibility assignments.
Maybe Section 230 doesn’t shield AI companies from liability, after all
2 months ago
- Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act may not protect AI companies from liability for their own software's outputs, as suggested by a new German ruling.
- The German decision holds companies liable for chatbot errors because such speech is not third-party content but the company's own speech.
- Sam Altman's 2023 Senate testimony claimed OpenAI should not have full immunity, but his company later supported an Illinois law shielding AI labs from liability for severe harms.
- A bipartisan bill to sunset Section 230 was introduced but has low chances of enactment due to opposition from tech giants.
- If US courts follow the German reasoning, AI providers like Google, OpenAI, and Anthropic could face liability for hallucinations, defamation, and bad medical advice.
- The author argues that removing Section 230 protection for AI companies could force the industry to reduce hallucinations and build safer systems.
If an AI chatbot misleads you, who is to blame?
2 months ago
- A German court ruled Google is liable for AI search summaries, rejecting defenses that users can verify or should not blindly trust AI-generated information.
- Internet companies have historically straddled the line between carriers (transmitting content without liability) and publishers (responsible for content they curate or create), with Section 230 shielding them from liability for others' speech.
- AI summaries, like Google's AI Overview, involve rewriting content with editorial discretion, making companies more akin to publishers and thus liable for inaccuracies or harm, as seen in Air Canada's case where a court held the airline responsible for its chatbot's promises.
- Liability for AI agents is crucial to ensure accuracy and accountability; allowing companies to hide behind faulty AI would create harmful incentives, undermining trust in systems like Visa's planned AI purchasing agents.
- If the German ruling stands, it could force Google to improve its AI system due to high error rates, potentially making some AI applications commercially unviable but benefiting users by ensuring reliability.

ai liability

When physicians and AI work together, who is accountable?

Maybe Section 230 doesn’t shield AI companies from liability, after all

If an AI chatbot misleads you, who is to blame?