3 ms·
In the firework example, you can still sue the person who fired the defective firework, because they should have known that unpredictable behavior was a possibi
by knodi123 4y ago
In the firework example, you can still sue the person who fired the defective firework, because they should have known that unpredictable behavior was a possibility, and taken steps to prevent that from escalating into some damage.
Likewise, suing the person behind the wheel of the self-driving car for negligence should work. Because the "non-driving driver" had the ability to seize the wheel, and should have known that some boneheaded behaviors are a risk with these early AIs.
- zeven7 4y agoDoes this change of there is no wheel for the passenger to seize?
- e_i_pi_2 4y agoIf you're the owner of the car then I'd say it doesn't change - you chose to take that vehicle out on the road knowing it didn't have a way for you to control it. You can take the steering wheel off of your car with a wrench, you could build a computer to steer it for you, you're still primarily responsible as the owner. The owner could then try to go after the company, but they're still ultimately responsible even if the company doesn't cover the cost for them
- ohgodplsno 4y agoIf you are in a vehicle where there is no ability for you to prevent it from hitting you, then the responsibility falls in the manufacturer of the driverless vehicle. You are expected to be in control, or be able to be in control at all times. If there is such a possibility, anyways. If there isn't, that means the manufacturer is the one in control.
- knodi123 4y agoI mean, I'm not a judge, so we'll have to see, but it seems obvious to me that the existence of a wheel implies that sometimes you may need the wheel. And that if there is no wheel, it implies that the manufacturer of the car is saying that you won't need one and their own software is better in every situation. So yes, I'd say that would change things. IMO.