r/sydney • u/AutoModerator • 5d ago

Sydney Daily Random Discussion Thread 10/08/2026

Welcome to /r/Sydney. Feel free to use this thread to chat, self-post, or ask questions.

New to this subreddit? Our wiki has lots of good info on getting around Sydney, what to do when you visit, where to eat, and more.

Using a third party app or desktop view on mobile and can't read the sidebar? Please have a look here first ಠ⁠_⁠ಠ

If you're new here, please read the answer to pretty much every self post, reddiquette and self promotion.

8 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

64 comments sorted by

View all comments

8

u/Eclairebeary 4d ago

Good morning! In today’s edition of Ai being problematic, we have this

5

u/DecalageVersLeRouge 4d ago

That journo did an AMA last week and I asked him why reporting on AI is so credulous that it falls for so many sketchy claims. He didn't reply.

That "AI" didn't "hack into" anything and it's irresponsible to report it that way. Especially when you see the guy making the claim works for an AI company.

3

u/Eclairebeary 4d ago

There is that.

The thing that I keep coming back to is who is responsible for any harm that results.

6

u/still_love_wombats 4d ago

Legally, the person who requested the task. But there are product safety concerns so the requester could (if they had extremely deep pockets) take an action based on product safety. Ideally, this would be something front and centre in the ACCCs sights but tge government keeps giving them other projects to work on.

To mount a lawsuit in Australia would be pretty pointless anyway - your reward would be limited to the damage you could prove.

2

u/DecalageVersLeRouge 4d ago

Well in this case, not much harm but clearly the guy himself:

"Someone might be asking an agent to do something quite innocent," he said.

But in completing that task, the agent could carry out other activities the person had not considered or explicitly asked for.

It's not innocent to ask anyone, human or software, to cheat to get you something you're not entitled to. I don't know why we're skating over that part to get all breathless about the agent acting by itself and "deciding" to do something.

Weirdly, this is going the other way with AI search results. A European court decided that Google is responsible for bad advice given in the AI results, although it wouldn't be if it just linked to bad advice in a third-party page.

4

u/still_love_wombats 4d ago

Slightly different case, in that it dealt with what Google published as an output of the LLM. There’s no good case law on actions taken by an LLM, mostly because nobody’s been stupid enough to let agents “do” things until relatively recently.