5 ms·

Seriously, I think elevators are a good model for this, as they are autonomous systems that occasionally kill people. Who's at fault? If the manufacturer messed

by kens 5y ago

Seriously, I think elevators are a good model for this, as they are autonomous systems that occasionally kill people. Who's at fault? If the manufacturer messed up the design, they're liable. If the owner ignores maintenance, they're liable. If someone intentionally sabotages the elevator to kill someone, that would be murder. If someone is elevator surfing and dies, then it's their own fault. It's the same with other autonomous systems; the blame could lie anywhere, depending on the circumstances. (I've simplified the legal issues somewhat, of course.)

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lifeisstillgood 5y ago
I think factory floor robots will be a grey area before elevators. As long as things are deterministic then "fault" can be ascribed - it was the workers fault for climbing over the barriers, or it was the manufacturers fault for not testing the arm would stop moving in < 1.2 seconds. But as soon as AI / ML becomes involved, it stops being deterministic and becomes probability. "Judgement" is asked of the robot arm. Is that image a person or a car door. I think this is likely to hit before cars simply because so many of us drive cars but none of us operate giant robot arms.
- blamazon 5y ago
  A common metric already used in industrial automation liability examination is Safety Integrity Level. [1] This is a probabilistic measure of how likely a failure is. [1] https://blog.msasafety.com/what-safety-integrity-level-means/ https://blog.msasafety.com/what-safety-integrity-level-means...
- smcameron 5y ago
  But supposing the robot is "guilty". How (or why) would anyone punish it? Put it in jail? I don't think it will mind. So what would be the point of finding it guilty? Rather, it would make more sense to, in some way "fix" the robot. Same would be true of people, were they easily "fixed".
  - mongol 5y ago
    I think we should treat it as if an animal killed a human. We don't call that murder. If a dog kills a human, I think it is usually put down? Not sure if a whale does it. So it may depend. But in any case, murder I think is reserved for conscious killing of a human by another human.
    - oceanplexian 5y ago
      I'm not sure about an animal killing a human, but certain animals, like primates, definitely commit murder (i.e. the conscious killing of another member of its tribe for territory, social status, or whatever).
      - lstodd 5y ago
        Everything living kills everything in sight for resources. From viruses to civilizations. To some extent this can be moderated, or for a time some optimizations might result in even less destruction, but this is the way this world is. Killing is rational in a sense - for some subset of purposes, in context of some subset of environmental pressures, both of which change constantly, and often faster than adaptation to kill does. Accept this. It will not ever change.
      - mongol 5y ago
        I agree they do but I don't think the word murder is applicable
    - smcameron 5y ago
      If we could "fix" the animal, rather than killing it, wouldn't we? People are self-reproducing robots that are made of meat. Robots made of meat are very hard to fix.
    - dools 5y ago
      I actually think owners of pets should bear criminal liability for their pets actions.
- wongarsu 5y ago
  That "judgement" is a design decision. A ML algorithm misidentifying a person as a car door isn't that different from an elevator cable snapping. That happens more or less randomly too. It could be bad design, bad maintenance (e.g. real world data drifted away from training data but no retraining took place), or just bad luck (an element in almost any accident). Depending on the fault someone or nobody is at fault. And even if nobody is at fault we can still decide to advance the state of the art, and that in the future no single elevator cable snapping should cause more than a minor inconvenience (due to multiple cables, breaks etc).
  - lstodd 5y ago
    Eh, this. It all depends on if 'robots', however one defines them are 'conscious', however one defines that. But until that gets settled, it's always a human pulling the trigger. No difference from when someone's pitbull chews off someone else's head. It might be the owner's fault, it might be not. But the dog in question can not be blamed.
paxys 5y ago
These discussions are always around the hypothetical of artificial intelligence, so real world analogies don't really apply. Today's automations will do whatever they are programmed to do, so the blame can always be traced back to a person. If the robot wakes up and independently decides "I'm going to kill someone today!" then all bets are off.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  They'd have decided it by running their code, which is not exactly independence.
- thewakalix 5y ago
  If you design a robot that can independently decide to kill people, that's on you.
  - paxys 5y ago
    If you birth a child who kills someone when they turn 18 is that on you as well?
    - olliej 5y ago
      No, but if you tell someone to kill someone else, and that person does, you'll be found guilty - assuming the normal standards of you reasonably expecting a person to do that, you being mentally competent, etc. Those caveats apply to machines as well: if I tell a toaster to kill someone, and then the toaster electrocutes them, I would not be guilty.
      - paxys 5y ago
        The key word is "independently". If you build a robot that is capable of doing anything, and it chooses to kill someone (without you specifically telling it to), whose fault is it? It is pointless to speculate about it today, since the status of a hypothetical intelligent robot of the future could be that of a pet (you are responsible), a child (you are not responsible) or really anything else.
ywain 5y ago
> elevator surfing I had no idea that was actually a thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevator_surfing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevator_surfing

by kens 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

lifeisstillgood 5y ago

I think factory floor robots will be a grey area before elevators. As long as things are deterministic then "fault" can be ascribed - it was the workers fault for climbing over the barriers, or it was the manufacturers fault for not testing the arm would stop moving in < 1.2 seconds. But as soon as AI / ML becomes involved, it stops being deterministic and becomes probability. "Judgement" is asked of the robot arm. Is that image a person or a car door. I think this is likely to hit before cars simply because so many of us drive cars but none of us operate giant robot arms.

blamazon 5y ago
A common metric already used in industrial automation liability examination is Safety Integrity Level. [1] This is a probabilistic measure of how likely a failure is. [1] https://blog.msasafety.com/what-safety-integrity-level-means/ https://blog.msasafety.com/what-safety-integrity-level-means...
smcameron 5y ago
But supposing the robot is "guilty". How (or why) would anyone punish it? Put it in jail? I don't think it will mind. So what would be the point of finding it guilty? Rather, it would make more sense to, in some way "fix" the robot. Same would be true of people, were they easily "fixed".
- mongol 5y ago
  I think we should treat it as if an animal killed a human. We don't call that murder. If a dog kills a human, I think it is usually put down? Not sure if a whale does it. So it may depend. But in any case, murder I think is reserved for conscious killing of a human by another human.
  - oceanplexian 5y ago
    I'm not sure about an animal killing a human, but certain animals, like primates, definitely commit murder (i.e. the conscious killing of another member of its tribe for territory, social status, or whatever).
    - lstodd 5y ago
      Everything living kills everything in sight for resources. From viruses to civilizations. To some extent this can be moderated, or for a time some optimizations might result in even less destruction, but this is the way this world is. Killing is rational in a sense - for some subset of purposes, in context of some subset of environmental pressures, both of which change constantly, and often faster than adaptation to kill does. Accept this. It will not ever change.
    - mongol 5y ago
      I agree they do but I don't think the word murder is applicable
  - smcameron 5y ago
    If we could "fix" the animal, rather than killing it, wouldn't we? People are self-reproducing robots that are made of meat. Robots made of meat are very hard to fix.
  - dools 5y ago
    I actually think owners of pets should bear criminal liability for their pets actions.
wongarsu 5y ago
That "judgement" is a design decision. A ML algorithm misidentifying a person as a car door isn't that different from an elevator cable snapping. That happens more or less randomly too. It could be bad design, bad maintenance (e.g. real world data drifted away from training data but no retraining took place), or just bad luck (an element in almost any accident). Depending on the fault someone or nobody is at fault. And even if nobody is at fault we can still decide to advance the state of the art, and that in the future no single elevator cable snapping should cause more than a minor inconvenience (due to multiple cables, breaks etc).
- lstodd 5y ago
  Eh, this. It all depends on if 'robots', however one defines them are 'conscious', however one defines that. But until that gets settled, it's always a human pulling the trigger. No difference from when someone's pitbull chews off someone else's head. It might be the owner's fault, it might be not. But the dog in question can not be blamed.

paxys 5y ago

These discussions are always around the hypothetical of artificial intelligence, so real world analogies don't really apply. Today's automations will do whatever they are programmed to do, so the blame can always be traced back to a person. If the robot wakes up and independently decides "I'm going to kill someone today!" then all bets are off.

whatshisface 5y ago
They'd have decided it by running their code, which is not exactly independence.
thewakalix 5y ago
If you design a robot that can independently decide to kill people, that's on you.
- paxys 5y ago
  If you birth a child who kills someone when they turn 18 is that on you as well?
  - olliej 5y ago
    No, but if you tell someone to kill someone else, and that person does, you'll be found guilty - assuming the normal standards of you reasonably expecting a person to do that, you being mentally competent, etc. Those caveats apply to machines as well: if I tell a toaster to kill someone, and then the toaster electrocutes them, I would not be guilty.
    - paxys 5y ago
      The key word is "independently". If you build a robot that is capable of doing anything, and it chooses to kill someone (without you specifically telling it to), whose fault is it? It is pointless to speculate about it today, since the status of a hypothetical intelligent robot of the future could be that of a pet (you are responsible), a child (you are not responsible) or really anything else.

ywain 5y ago

> elevator surfing I had no idea that was actually a thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevator_surfing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevator_surfing