zlacker

>>p0nce+(OP)
This brings upon an ethical dilemma soon, partly explored by a black mirror episode, where AI can call upon gig workers. What if a rogue agent gets to things done: asks gigworker1 to call a person to meet under a bridge at 4, and asks gigworker2 to put up a rock on the bridge, and asks gigworker3 to clear the obstruction and drop the rock down the bridge at 4.

None of the 3 technically knew they were culpable in a larger illegal plan made by an agent. Has something like this occured already?

The world is moving too fast for our social rules and legal system to keep up!

>>anilgu+Ps
It's an interesting train of thoughts.

Investigators would need to connect the dots. If they weren't able to connect them, it would look like a normal accident, which happens all day. So why would an agent call gigworker1 to that place in the first place? And why would the agent feel the need to kill gigworker1? What could be the reasoning?

Edit: I thought about that. Gigworker 3 would be charged. You should not throw rocks from a bridge, if there are people standing under it.

>>MrGilb+Uu
Or just don't throw rocks from a bridge, at all. /s

Who's at fault when: Your CloowdBot reads an angry email that you sent about how much you hate Person X and jokingly hope AI takes care of them, only for it to orchestrate such a plan.

How about when your CloowdBot convinces someone else's AI to orchestrate it?

Etc