text stringlengths 0 2.35k |
|---|
[1612.92 --> 1624.50] software doesn't have any of that really yet we've sort of operated in this rules-free zone where everybody was like software so cool I guess we'll just let it happen |
[1624.50 --> 1643.16] and um I think that age is coming to an end to be perfectly honest actually I think the European Union has published in the past year including one last week two weeks ago papers on liability for software right I the idea of |
[1643.16 --> 1654.32] if a car wheel explodes and causes a car accident we have a very clear idea of how we should figure out who is liable for that if an AI goes wrong or |
[1654.32 --> 1666.34] software goes wrong and the car goes off the road and causes the exact same accident we actually have very little idea how we should apportion liability right and it's not necessarily about |
[1666.34 --> 1676.80] oh like that is for practical reasons those kinds of things tend to look the same right because at the end of the day the company that commissioned the code is also the company that sold the product |
[1676.80 --> 1688.54] so you tend to see those things tied together but there's no formal reason for that right like copyright law doesn't especially because copyright law historically was about like things that didn't cause car crashes |
[1688.54 --> 1704.42] right historically copyright law like literally modern copyright law in the US is in large part because of player pianos like scrolling wheels like what you saw in Westworld like scrolling wheels with little punch holes that caused the piano to do things like pianos didn't run off and like kill p... |
[1704.42 --> 1715.46] so copyright law doesn't really have much to say inherently about product liability and that's something that we are I think screaming towards a very high velocity |
[1715.46 --> 1721.00] at least in the EU and I suspect because of AI in the US soon as well |
[1721.00 --> 1728.40] I feel like there's an interesting component to that as well because when you think about what we create we're just creating words on a page like |
[1728.40 --> 1737.04] the manufacturing process of turning that into something that does something is not necessarily something that the person who wrote the code does |
[1737.04 --> 1744.90] so it's like something that somebody else does and then there's all of the like well the machine you run it on like if a bug does happen with like a car that's driving |
[1744.90 --> 1751.82] is it the fault of the person who wrote the code is it the fault of the machine is there a problem with the machine who like who gets the blame and I think that gets |
[1751.82 --> 1758.84] extremely murky because we're dealing with such like new stuff that we have never had in like the existence of humanity |
[1758.84 --> 1770.04] yeah I mean the original history of this in like the English and US law systems was that literally like to get to that point where hey the car wheel |
[1770.04 --> 1778.88] explodes we should sue the car manufacturer involved a lot of people dying in train accidents and the train companies being like oh but that's not |
[1778.88 --> 1803.66] our fault we just laid the tracks bought the train bought the coal it's the guy who was driving it's their fault so you can't sue us and that actually like as a matter of law was like a good argument for decades and then the number of accidents as trains became ever more present as part of our ec... |
[1803.66 --> 1811.52] drove a change drove a change in understanding right because that rule was originally from like hey some dude on a horse |
[1811.52 --> 1824.94] it's not my fault if he's like my my squire or whatever pick your ancient British legal term you know if they're out on my horse like genuinely it's sort of not my problem if they like caused an accident |
[1824.94 --> 1831.70] you know I mean yeah I own the horse but like and so the train companies for a long time were like well look it's just like a horse |
[1831.70 --> 1838.32] this train is just like a horse I can't be responsible and so at some point the legal system was like actually this is ludicrous |
[1838.32 --> 1844.32] and so a combination of courts and congress changed the rules to make the train companies more liable |
[1844.32 --> 1853.50] no surprise the trains then started getting safer yeah Angelico I've actually got a British person on this podcast I believe so why am I not asking you the proper terms here |
[1853.50 --> 1855.32] yeah sometimes the footman's fault |
[1855.32 --> 1862.04] well that's exactly it right it's the footman's fault and so I think we're seeing we are is both an exciting and a terrifying time |
[1862.04 --> 1868.62] for lawyers that we are in the midst of one of these very rare technological changes right we are |
[1868.62 --> 1874.94] AI I think in particular is going to be that new train nobody really understands nobody wants to take responsibility |
[1875.52 --> 1882.32] for Chris as you say like super good reasons this stuff is literally the most complicated systems ever built by humankind |
[1882.32 --> 1886.26] we like even in the best case have only the vaguest sense of how it works |
[1886.26 --> 1890.70] and like good luck explaining it to a judge |
[1890.70 --> 1894.00] I had a conversation with some lawyer friends last week that was like |
[1894.00 --> 1898.32] how would you explain and these are like fairly sophisticated |
[1898.32 --> 1902.74] you know like most either are programmers or one of the people is like married to a programmer |
[1902.74 --> 1906.88] like we're fairly and we've been doing tech law all for cumulatively many decades |
[1906.88 --> 1909.32] how would you explain machine learning to a judge |
[1909.32 --> 1914.60] and we all just sort of stuttered in horror at that thought right because it's a really |
[1914.60 --> 1918.00] again I mean even to programmers who haven't thought about it |
[1918.00 --> 1920.12] it can be really hard unintuitive |
[1920.12 --> 1924.50] the vocabulary is changing all the time the technology is changing all the time |
[1924.50 --> 1926.88] and to try to explain it to congress |
[1926.88 --> 1929.70] or to a judge is a scary proposition |
[1929.70 --> 1932.00] it's an exciting whoever gets to do it first |
[1932.00 --> 1935.20] that's gonna be a super great lawyer job for somebody |
[1935.20 --> 1938.88] but also like boy when you screw it up |
[1938.88 --> 1941.74] and we felt a lot of pressure in the google oracle trial right |
[1941.74 --> 1945.64] that this was something that if we got it wrong it would really hurt open source |
[1945.64 --> 1949.32] and I suspect every good lawyer of course cares about their client |
[1949.32 --> 1953.50] but some clients are just represent one client |
[1953.50 --> 1956.34] and other clients represent these big systemic changes |
[1956.34 --> 1958.42] and you feel that weight as a lawyer |
[1958.42 --> 1961.82] I feel like there's a other side of the problem as well |
[1961.82 --> 1967.60] because it's like if you try and assign blame to the person who like owns the copyright of code |
[1967.60 --> 1970.94] there is a huge amount of code that we all depend on all the time |
[1970.94 --> 1973.58] that's maintained by like some random dude in Nebraska |
[1973.58 --> 1975.30] like individual people |
[1975.30 --> 1977.62] and it's like well if you can sue to get to them |
[1977.62 --> 1980.40] because something they wrote caused some problem somewhere down the chain |
[1980.40 --> 1982.70] then that's obviously a problem |
[1982.70 --> 1985.36] because I can kind of see the chain where it's just like well |
[1985.36 --> 1989.32] who actually gets the blame for the bug that was written |
[1989.32 --> 1990.80] or the problem that happened with the code |
[1990.80 --> 1993.38] because you can easily just like keep tracing that back |
[1993.38 --> 1995.30] further and further and further and further |
[1995.30 --> 1997.12] by like passing on the blanks |
[1997.12 --> 1998.66] it's like once again with the train it's like |
[1998.66 --> 2000.80] well I didn't create that wheel |
[2000.80 --> 2002.02] someone else created that wheel |
[2002.02 --> 2003.36] so that's their problem |
[2003.36 --> 2006.40] or like with the Spectre meltdown hardware problems |
[2006.40 --> 2009.40] where it's like oh well it's not my fault there was a breach |
[2009.40 --> 2011.92] the processor shouldn't have been speculatively executing |
[2011.92 --> 2014.72] like there's so many like weird arguments that you have |
[2014.72 --> 2017.98] because of this stuff that we don't really understand what it is right now |
[2017.98 --> 2023.68] yeah and I think applying the old models is probably going to get us some very bad outcomes |
[2023.68 --> 2028.68] and unfortunately the way the legal system learns sometimes is by having bad outcomes |
[2028.68 --> 2030.56] everybody stubs their toe on it |
[2030.56 --> 2033.80] and then you sort of fix that up as we go |
[2033.80 --> 2036.06] but some people end up being caught in the middle |
[2036.06 --> 2037.36] that guy in Nebraska |
[2037.36 --> 2042.88] I assume all the listeners here have seen the XKCD comic about the guy in Nebraska |
[2042.88 --> 2045.98] the problem is of course it's not even just one guy in Nebraska |
[2045.98 --> 2048.28] it is a tower of 10,000 guys in Nebraska |
[2048.28 --> 2052.44] and so you know I do want to talk a little bit about the day job here |
[2052.44 --> 2055.96] because I founded co-founded a company called Tidelift |
[2055.96 --> 2059.52] and Tidelift's mission as we said at the top of the show |
[2059.52 --> 2061.38] is to make open source better for everyone |
[2061.38 --> 2063.42] in part by paying the maintainers |
[2063.42 --> 2065.58] because what we're seeing happen all the time |
[2065.58 --> 2067.44] we saw it happen a couple times this week |
[2067.44 --> 2068.80] just in the JavaScript community |
[2068.80 --> 2074.10] is the solution to this kind of problem that you've identified Chris so far |
[2074.10 --> 2077.64] is we'll just start applying standards |
[2077.64 --> 2081.96] right so like we've got the open SSF standard security scorecard |
[2081.96 --> 2083.82] we've got salsa.dev |
[2083.82 --> 2086.60] which is a different kind of security scorecard |
[2086.60 --> 2090.16] GitHub caused some controversy by saying |
[2090.16 --> 2091.98] hey we've identified the most popular |
[2091.98 --> 2094.62] I think only NPM for right now |
[2094.62 --> 2095.52] projects |
[2095.52 --> 2099.10] and we're sending you all a free two-factor authentication key |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.