4 ms·
If something is risky, and the end operator cannot be considered to have orchestrated the outcomes of too use, then that tool typically has significant restrict
by intended 19d ago
If something is risky, and the end operator cannot be considered to have orchestrated the outcomes of too use, then that tool typically has significant restrictions placed on it.
Liability will shift to the maker of the tool if they claim that it’s easy to use, safe, or that you don’t need unique skills or training to use it.
That would be considered reckless.
Cars analogy - We have licenses for cars, and different types for different vehicle classes.
Cars have to be rigorously tested to meet standards to be considered road safe.
- tetha 19d agoIt's going to be interesting, because liability cases tend to revolve around the involved people, the duty they had in a situation, and if they fulfilled that duty (or were prevented in some way by someone else not fulfilling their duty). For example, for a runaway car (example from a sibling comment), the driver could be liable because they forgot the parking brake. The driver could be liable for a lack of maintenance and inspection. A mechanic could be liable for not reinstalling brake pads correctly. Or the manufacturer of the car or the brake pads could be liable because of a systemic defect. Or it could grow even more complex, maybe the brakes are designed that they have to be maintained in a very specific way, and the mechanic did a reasonable maintenance and inspection but it failed later due to this maintenance. That could split liability between the manufacturer and the mechanic. As an example, with other software, you as a developer or operator of a software have a duty to ensure it does not access computer systems you do not own in unintended ways. And this could go beyond liability into criminal territory. It'll be interesting what OpenAI gets slapped with there.