• towerful@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Follow sensible H&S rules.
    Split the responsibility between the person that decided AI is able to do this task and the company that sold the AI saying it’s capable of this.

    For the case of the purchasing company, obviously start with the person that chose that AI, then spread that responsibility up the employment chain. So the manager that approved it, the managers manager, all the way to the executive office & company as a whole.
    If investigation shows that the purchasing company ignored sales advice, then it’s all on the purchasing company.

    If the investigation shows that the purchasing company followed the sales advice, then the responsibility is split, unless the purchasing company can show that they did due diligence in the purchase.
    For the supplier, the person that sold that tech. If the investigation shows that the engineers approved that sales pitch, then that engineers employment chain. If the sales person ignored the devs, then the sales employment chain. Up to the executive level.

    No scape goats.
    Whatever happens, C office, companies, and probably a lot of managers get hauled into court.
    Make it rough for everyone in the chain of purchase and supply.
    If the issue is a genuine mistake, then appropriate insurance will cover any damages. If the issue is actually fraud, then EVERYONE (and the company) from the level of handover upwards should be punished