4 ms·
I'm gonna say no. Even if AIs have full human rights and responsibilities in the setting, HAL was clearly not in its right mind. Ergo, even if HAL would ordinar
by SuoDuanDao 7y ago
I'm gonna say no. Even if AIs have full human rights and responsibilities in the setting, HAL was clearly not in its right mind. Ergo, even if HAL would ordinarily be responsible for the crew's deaths, it could not be held criminally responsible in this instance.
- ses1984 7y agoSlippery argument, it has an element of tautology. You could say any AI that murders is not in its right mind, what does right mind even mean?
- SuoDuanDao 7y agoInsanity vs criminal intent is a difficult line to draw, and probably a lot of people who are convicted of murder were actually criminally insane at the time. But there's still a distinction we make for insane humans vs criminal humans. I suppose we'd have to subject HAL to some kind of 'reasonable AI' test.
- ses1984 7y agoI suppose we should just treat the subject of ai criminal justice completely differently, and make human operators and architects criminally liable for negligence in designing systems that use ai.
- scrumper 7y agoWhich could result in a manslaughter verdict (had HAL survived the enstellaration at the end of 2010 and been bought back to Earth for trial.) Interesting stuff here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminished_responsibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminished_responsibility As with many legal matters, it's far from black and white.