3 ms·

Let's say you have a robotic lawnmower. You wan to mow your lawn. You configure the boundaries using the app. The lawnmower ignores the boundaries and mows you

Let's say you have a robotic lawnmower. You wan to mow your lawn. You configure the boundaries using the app. The lawnmower ignores the boundaries and mows your neighbors prize petunia flowerbed. Who gets prosecuted? I assume the answer in either case is: Nobody, but you and/or the lawnmower/LLM company will be liable for the damages caused.

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
pbhjpbhj 2mo ago
It would be a civil matter. No prosecution. But your tool, under your control (you're the operator and responsible for monitoring it) damaged their property, imo you'd be liable. You could in turn sue the manufacturer. Though I'm sure there are 'arbitration clauses' to inhibit you from suing, they may not be legal where you are.
Timpanzee 2mo ago
Who gets prosecuted is the correct question since we live under a system of laws. Who is responsible for the failure is a far more difficult question to answer.
sdeframond 2mo ago
Now what if this robotic lawnmower killed someone ? And what if many lawnmowers started killing/injuring people ? And what if this a known behavior detected during QA, but the robots are sold anyway with a disclosure ?
- tgsovlerkhgsel 2mo ago
  That would be a slightly different situation because most countries have laws that make it a criminal offense to negligently kill someone, but they don't have laws that make it a criminal offense to negligently damage property or hack a website.
  - avianlyric 2mo ago
    > but they don't have laws that make it a criminal offense to negligently damage property or hack a website. Most of them do, but they don’t get used very often. They seem to popup in vandalism cases where public artwork has been damaged by some drunk person doing something stupid. They don’t intend to damage anything, but damage results anyway due to their negligence when considering the consequences of their actions. I think if you want to get super technical, in the UK there isn’t an offence for damage caused by negligence, but there is an offence for damage caused by recklessness, which is a higher bar than negligence. Usually it means you knew your actions risked causing damage, and you did it anyway, even if you didn’t actually intend to cause the damage. An example would be gluing something to a public artwork, it’s kinda obvious that would likely damage the artwork when removing the glue, but you didn’t intend to cause that damage. Or perhaps sliding down a surface and scratching it in the process. Your goal was to just slide down the surface, not scratch it, but it should have been obvious that scratching could have happened.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

pbhjpbhj 2mo ago

It would be a civil matter. No prosecution. But your tool, under your control (you're the operator and responsible for monitoring it) damaged their property, imo you'd be liable. You could in turn sue the manufacturer. Though I'm sure there are 'arbitration clauses' to inhibit you from suing, they may not be legal where you are.

Timpanzee 2mo ago

Who gets prosecuted is the correct question since we live under a system of laws. Who is responsible for the failure is a far more difficult question to answer.

sdeframond 2mo ago

Now what if this robotic lawnmower killed someone ? And what if many lawnmowers started killing/injuring people ? And what if this a known behavior detected during QA, but the robots are sold anyway with a disclosure ?

tgsovlerkhgsel 2mo ago
That would be a slightly different situation because most countries have laws that make it a criminal offense to negligently kill someone, but they don't have laws that make it a criminal offense to negligently damage property or hack a website.
- avianlyric 2mo ago
  > but they don't have laws that make it a criminal offense to negligently damage property or hack a website. Most of them do, but they don’t get used very often. They seem to popup in vandalism cases where public artwork has been damaged by some drunk person doing something stupid. They don’t intend to damage anything, but damage results anyway due to their negligence when considering the consequences of their actions. I think if you want to get super technical, in the UK there isn’t an offence for damage caused by negligence, but there is an offence for damage caused by recklessness, which is a higher bar than negligence. Usually it means you knew your actions risked causing damage, and you did it anyway, even if you didn’t actually intend to cause the damage. An example would be gluing something to a public artwork, it’s kinda obvious that would likely damage the artwork when removing the glue, but you didn’t intend to cause that damage. Or perhaps sliding down a surface and scratching it in the process. Your goal was to just slide down the surface, not scratch it, but it should have been obvious that scratching could have happened.