Who is responsible for the costs of un-deploying AI systems?

Use these indicators to tag your arguments by copy and pasting them from here. Please use proper indentations for  Objections

• Argument for Argument in favor of the position
• Argument against Argument against the position
  • Objection Objection to the argument.
    • Objection Objection to the objection.

And note that the  Argument for one position, is usually an  Argument against another position. You do not need to duplicate your arguments, just add it once in the relevant section.

The Inventor of the Algorithm are responsible for the costs

Relevant details, definitions and assumptions regarding the first possibility.

• Argument for They have a moral obligation to be responsible for the tools they design
• Argument for In order to economically incentivize the designers to consider safety because they will bear the cost
• Argument for If it can be proven that the inventor was aware of potential risks associated with their invention and failed to adequately warn or safeguard against them, they may be held responsible for any resulting harm.
• Argument against Unintended consequences: The inventor of a technology may not have intended for it to cause harm, and holding them financially responsible could discourage innovation and the development of new technologies.
• Argument against Limited control: Once a technology is released into the market, the inventor may have limited control over how it is used and may not be able to prevent all instances of harm caused by its use.
• Argument against Holding inventors responsible might discourage investment in new technologies
  • Objection Objection to the argument.
    • Objection Objection to the objection.

The corporation who makes the system available is responsible for the cost

Will balance the political economy with respect to the data that their using & ensure that they don't use data with abandoned. Data justice.

Argument for Corporations are government by market forces - so there must be an economic dis-incentive to providing potentially harmful services

Argument against Holding providers responsible, which may bring justice to the victims of harm, will prevent society at large from benefiting from the product. Innovation v regulation.

The government is responsible for the cost

Relevant details, definitions and assumptions regarding the first possibility.

Argument for The damages caused may be so great that individuals or corporations do not have the resources to compensate the victims.

Argument for Gov't has the widest reach over the social ramifications of un-deploying the system

Argument for Gov't bearing the cost would make society as a whole accountable

Argument for It requires Gov't to enforce un-deployment, so they should bear the cost

• Objection Existing strategy ie SEC enforces rules and pays for itself by enacting fines

Argument against Promoting innovation: By assuming responsibility for damages caused by technological progress, the government can promote innovation by providing a safety net for inventors and companies that are taking risks in developing new technologies. This can encourage continued progress and development in these industries.

The individual using the tool at the time are responsible for the costs

• Argument for Precedents in contract law and ethical discourse suggest pathways to holding end users responsible for mitigating the externalities of their use.
  • Objection These pathways will be circumvented by negligent and malicious actors, as they have been before.
• Argument against Undeploying AI systems may require resources, knowledge, and patterns of coordination that are beyond the capability of the vast majority of end users.