Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Contradictory Understandings of "Robot" Sow Confusion In US Law (medium.com)

Posted by timothy on from the this-one-just-heats-and-browns-bread dept.

Hallie Siegel writes: A new paper covering 60 years of robotics in American case law shows that a growing mismatch between how judges think about robots and what contemporary robots can actually do is resulting in inconsistent treatment of how robots are dealt with in the courts. Interestingly, much of this confusion comes down to the definition of the word robot; dictionaries' definitions often contradict each other. This article presents the case that lawmakers and policy makers need to work more closely with technology experts to develop a more nuanced understanding of robotics, lest new technologies overwhelm our legal systems.

8 of 100 comments (clear)

  1. More importantly... by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What I want to know is how US law views various other robot-like devices. For instance, is a giant robot that's piloted by a human considered a robot?
    What about a tele-operated robot, or a waldo?
    Likewise, is a drone considered a robot? At what degree of autonomy does it become considered one?

    1. Re:More importantly... by bws111 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Those questions are pretty much what the paper is about. One of the examples given was a marine salvage case, where a salvage team found a shipwreck that was about a mile and a half deep. It was too deep/too dangerous to dive, so they sent some autonomous subs down. Then they went to court to keep other salvagers away. The court decided that because the people were right above the wreck, and sending humans down was dangerous, the robots could stand in for the humans. The other salvagers were ordered to stay away, just like they would be if humans were diving. But it then raises the question: what if the humans had been on land? Would it still count? Tricky questions.

    2. Re:More importantly... by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 5, Funny

      What I want to know is how US law views various other robot-like devices. For instance, is a giant robot that's piloted by a human considered a robot? What about a tele-operated robot, or a waldo? Likewise, is a drone considered a robot? At what degree of autonomy does it become considered one?

      The real problem is that very few law schools in this country offer a Mecha Law program worth the name. I mean, it's gotten so bad that even the University of Phoenix had to discontinue their pre-Gundamology degree track for lack of interest. At the same time, the law profession's nativist/protectionist culture combined with our insane immigration policies (specifically Japanese immigration) have combined to create a severe shortage of qualified robotech lawyers in the United States.

    3. Re:More importantly... by Xest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That sort of example strikes me as a classic case of legal overthinking of the problem though. It sounds like the case revolved around nonsense such as whether humans were present near or at the wreck, when really the only real legal question that actually needed answering was "Should first finders get first dibs on the wreck". There's no real complexity added into the mix by robots, merely legal gymnastics introduced by lawyers because they think they can try and spin their argument with a new thing - first that was "on the internet", now it's "robots". There's only a problem because people are making money from making a problem, not because there actually needs to be one from this specific change in technology.

      I've seen similar questions posed around autonomous cars and what the legal liability should be, but the rules of the road are already well established, if your autonomous car illegally drives the wrong way around the roundabout and crashes into someone then you should still legally be at fault. You may wish to try and sue the car manufacturer but that's really no different to the status quo - if you're in a car and the fucking wheel falls off making you crash into someone you're still at fault currently from an insurance perspective, but if it fell off because it was defective you make a claim against the manufacturer.

      So I think the only legal complications come from broken law and legal gymnastics, and if anything robots will force us to tidy up the law so that we don't argue "You can't dive this wreck, it's not safe!" but instead argue in court about what they really mean - "You can't dive this wreck, because we found it first!".

      Beyond that I don't really see robots needing to add much complexity to the law, they're a tool like any other and should be treated as such in law (at least until we have strong AI and concious robots enter the fray if that ever happens). Just as if you pull the trigger on a gun whilst pointing it at someone you can't say "I just pulled the trigger, it was the gun that ignited the gunpowder and launched the bullet into him so it's the gun's fault!" anymore than you can say "I know I pressed the go forward at 100mph button when he was in front of my car, but it was the robot that actually drove into him!". Levels of culpability degrade as they always have - if you explicitly told the robot to drive at someone it's murder, if you told the robot to drive 40mph in a 30mph zone and it hit someone then it's manslaughter, if the robot hit someone all by itself without it being anything to do with you and you did everything right legally then it's a tragic fucking accident that the victims family can sue the manufacturer of the faulty tool (robot) over. I don't see why the law needs to change whether the tool is, say, a runaway non-robotic tractor, or an automated robotic one.

      (Adjust my post as necessary for whatever your current local laws say for determining different levels of culpability)

    4. Re:More importantly... by Blue23 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That sort of example strikes me as a classic case of legal overthinking of the problem though. It sounds like the case revolved around nonsense such as whether humans were present near or at the wreck, when really the only real legal question that actually needed answering was "Should first finders get first dibs on the wreck".

      I think perhaps you are oversimplifying the problem. If I were to theorize 2352 potential shipwreck locations based on satellite imagery and publish it, am I the "first finder"? If I get odd sonar pings but don't follow it up am I the "first finder"?

      I believe maritime law may specifically want to grant salvage rights to the first people at the wreck, and anything else opens doors to abuse. Can anyone who actually knows it speak to this?

      --
      LITTLE GIRL: But which cookie will you eat FIRST? C. MONSTER: Me think you have misconception of cookie-eating process.
  2. The part nearly all current definitions miss... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    autonomy.

    Robots work based on stored directions, without needing direct human control. None of the current "robots" (other than those in manufacturing) are actually autonomous. The experiments in walking, yes, as the determination of "how" is done by the machine itself, not the person that directs "where" to walk.

    The others are actually "drones", being fully controlled by a human or (in some cases, an animal).

  3. Robot Sow Confusion... by sacrilicious · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... is troubling. Imagine an army of robotic pigs with no clear instructions on what to do or where to go.

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  4. The definition of "robot" is time-dependent by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A robot is a machine that can do a human's job. Over time, we cease to think of these jobs as human occupations, and thus we cease to think of the devices as robots. Consider these occupations:

    • Elevator operator
    • Washerwoman (it's old enough that I won't say "washerperson")
    • Computer (yes, that was an occupation)
    • Telephone answering service person
    • Telephone operator
    • Copyist
    --
    Bruce Perens.