7 ms·
New California bill might block the "AI did it" defense in civil cases
- doctorpangloss 2y agoHa ha, can’t say AI did it, but hundreds of people die yearly in California to drivers claiming pEdAl cOnFuSiOn, and that’s okay.
- grepfru_it 2y agoIt’s not okay though, what you described is still fault of the driver
- doctorpangloss 2y agoPrepare to be pissed off when you punch this stuff into Google and study this issue.
- grepfru_it 2y agoGoogle provides me a list of California law firms willing to defend against a pedal confusion liability claim. Maybe I’m missing something?
- doctorpangloss 2y agoYou're supposed to add "reddit" to Google searches to make them work well. The punchline is that you can kill somebody in California using a car, claim pedal confusion, and all else being equal, you will face no criminal consequences. You will almost never be financially ruined either. The point of this comparison is that California assembly members write a lot of bills, but they rarely seem to find bandwidth for addressing any of its numerous crises of direct responsibility. It's always some fashionable bullshit.
- alexd127 2y agoHow would user vs developer be distinguished? Looks like it mentions both users and developers but doesnt distinguish how one would be found liable
- Kinrany 2y agoNot a new question: "the AI did it" is an equivalent of "the gun did it" or "the car did it".
- RobotToaster 2y ago> or "the car did it". Tesla gives you the old with the new.
- escapecharacter 2y agoAccountability hacking: https://www.motortrend.com/news/nhtsa-tesla-autopilot-investigation-shutoff-crash/ https://www.motortrend.com/news/nhtsa-tesla-autopilot-invest...
- Muromec 2y agoLiability sinks is the word
- lelandfe 2y agoOn the other hand, “the corporation did it” has been pretty successful so far
- rileymat2 2y ago> This bill would prohibit a defendant that developed or used artificial intelligence, as defined, from asserting a defense that the artificial intelligence autonomously caused the harm to the plaintiff. I am not sure the distinction matters?
- dzink 2y ago
- RobotToaster 2y ago"A computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a management decision" - IBM 1979
- rqtwteye 2y ago2030: "Nothing is our fault because the computer did it. We get the profits though."
- deadbabe 2y agoThis bill sucks, a developer should never be held accountable for software they work on or produce.
- rileymat2 2y agoBut then won't you get a bunch of things that have tons of fine print that no one reads that say do not use it for these purposes. Then have users use them for those purposes harming others?
- roughly 2y agoThat's an insane standard. Your work has real-world consequences, act accordingly.
- codr7 2y agoHm, once we draw that line a shit ton of people will have to start asking difficult questions about their work. Not saying it's a bad idea, but it has consequences that I suspect you have not considered. It's very rare for the people writing the code to have any say in what it does.
- otterley 2y ago> It's very rare for the people writing the code to have any say in what it does. That's no defense. Employment is voluntary, and you cannot break the law while doing your job, even if your employer commands you to.
- nine_zeros 2y agoI hope when they mean AI developers, it means the owners of the IP, and not the actual devs working on it.
- TZubiri 2y agoAs I understand it the concept of causal chain is quite standard in liability law
- TheRealPomax 2y agoIt's unclear whether this applies to state law enforcement or only the citizenship. It also seems to focus not on "invalidating the defense" but on "punishing the developers" which is more than a little weird.
- inetknght 2y ago> It's unclear whether this applies to state law enforcement or only the citizenship A few months ago I might have pointed out that nobody is above the law. Alas, you now have a damn good point.
- TheRealPomax 2y agoIf you still thought police obeyed the law a few months ago, that's a pretty damning admission given all the reporting to the contrary over the past decade
- inetknght 2y ago> If you still thought police obeyed the law a few months ago I didn't say that. I said nobody's above the law. There are plenty of police who commit crimes. It's sad and unfortunate that many of them get away with their crimes. But many of them also do not.
- gibbitz 2y agoThank God, civil lawsuits can save us from AI overuse since the government has reversed their position.
- breadwinner 2y agoThe bill is specifically about cars, but the site doesn't make that clear. Here's a better link: https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202320240ab316 https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202320240ab...
- opawlowski 2y agothats a different bill from last session.
- breadwinner 2y agoI am going by the bill id AB-316: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB316 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...
- cgriswald 2y agoAB-316 isn't a unique id. Each session restarts the bill numbers. You're referencing AB-316 (2023-2024) while the linked bill is AB-316 (2025-2026).
- alexd127 2y agoThis is wrong. That bill looks like it was reintroduced here https://www.veeto.app/bill/1893370 https://www.veeto.app/bill/1893370
- gweinberg 2y agoHas "the AI did it" ever been a valid defense? I can see why the legislature might want to make it explicit that it is not, but surely it can't be the case that harm caused by an AI is treated as if it were an act of God.
- malfist 2y agoNot yet probably, but "too expensive to comply" is a common refrain from big tech when they break the law. Look at all the excuses Uber has made
- bean-weevil 2y agoI agree. If you hire someone, and they aggrieve someone in the course of their duties, your contractor is your agent and you're responsible for what they did. It makes no sense to treat AI any differently.
- kjs3 2y agoWhile it's not been wrung out in the courts yet, the insurance industry has been denying coverage based on "the AI said so" for a while, coupled tightly with "we can't tell you why because the algorithm is a trade secret". Given the current governance and oversight climate, I don't have much hope that more transparency is in the offing.
- SpicyLemonZest 2y agoThe "AI did it" defense as defined in this bill seems like it clearly ought to be valid. If a CNC machine injures someone, and the victim sues the operator, I don't see why he should be unable to argue that it wasn't his fault because the machine malfunctioned.