Who's Liable For Decisions AI and Robotics Make? (betanews.com)

An anonymous reader shares a BetaNews article: Reuters news agency reported on February 16 that "European lawmakers called [...] for EU-wide legislation to regulate the rise of robots, including an ethical framework for their development and deployment and the establishment of liability for the actions of robots including self-driving cars." The question of determining "liability" for decision making achieved by robots or artificial intelligence is an interesting and important subject as the implementation of this technology increases in industry, and starts to more directly impact our day to day lives. Indeed, as application of Artificial Intelligence and machine learning technology grows, we are likely to witness how it changes the nature of work, businesses, industries and society. And yet, although it has the power to disrupt and drive greater efficiencies, AI has its obstacles: the issue of "who is liable when something goes awry" being one of them. Like many protagonists in industry, Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are trying to tackle this liability question. Many of them are calling for new laws on artificial intelligence and robotics to address the legal and insurance liability issues. They also want researchers to adopt some common ethical standards in order to "respect human dignity."

Comments

What a novel question

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think anyone has ever considered this issue. Ever.

AI is just software

[david.emery]

and I've been calling for professional licensing and liability for software engineers for at least 30 years. That should follow the approach for other Professional Engineers, including the use of 'engineering practices' as a defense.

The software community has done an appallingly shitty job with software reliability. (Exhibit 1: CERT database of software vulnerabilities.) It's way past time they get held accountable. And yeah, this will slow things down and require people do things right the first time, and it will put a serious dent in the management approach to "throw the cheapest bodies at the software problem, and damn the bugs!" Product liability needs to include both corporate and individual liability.

Re:Easy, the programmer of course.

[JustNiz]

Because most AI and some robots rely on techniques that create emergent behaviour (i.e. not directly programmed therefore unverifiable) such as neural nets and swarm theory.

Who is liable when your tv catches fire

[thinkwaitfast]

and burns your house down due to faulty wiring?

Robotics have been with us for more than half a century.

Re:Who is liable when your tv catches fire

[nine-times]

You're right. Ultimately, this is not a new problem. The question boils down to, "Who is responsible when a product malfunctions?"

However, there is a relevant shift in liability that needs to happen. Basically there are certain things where the manufacturer is only responsible for the product being able to operate safely, but the operator of the product is also partially responsible.

For example, Toyota may have legal liability for a manufacturing defect that causes the breaks to stop working, but Toyota isn't responsible for a car crash caused by an unsafe driver. Once you have self-driving cars, that needs to change because the "driver" cannot be held responsible. Obviously the manufacturer needs to take on greater liability, but there also may be situations where that's not really practical either. There may still be things that the car's owner or passenger could do to cause an accident. For example, if the owner modifies the car or fails to perform maintenance, and that causes the AI to malfunction, the owner should probably still be held responsible. Or there will certainly be some accidents that just happen, and aren't really anyone's fault.

And the particulars of all that need to be codified into law. We have hundreds of years of laws dealing with carriages and cars, but some of those may shift when the car is autonomous. What, exactly, is the car's manufacturer responsible for, and what is the owner responsible for? How do we determine whether an AI is adequate to make the necessary decisions, and how will inspections be carried out? These are things that need to be thought about.

Re:Who is liable when your tv catches fire

[thinkwaitfast]

I have a robotic oven, microwave, dishwasher, washing machine and HVAC.. Come to think of it, so did my grandparents.

Re:Easy, the programmer of course.

[JustNiz]

>> So? I don't think any code I've created has been formally proven to be correct

You obviously haven't worked in avionics or written autopilots then. I have and this is exactly what you do. BTW Formal proof (at last the type good enough for the FAA) also has little or nothing to do with writing in assembly.

Re:Nope: The deployment decision maker

[EndlessNameless]

The elected politician or judge or senior executive who approved the use of the category of technology in the category of application in which the problem occurred is who ought to be responsible.

Terrible answer. Nothing will ever be approved if the approvers are afraid of being sued into personal bankruptcy.

If AI means "autonomous system": Whoever manufactures and certifies them for public use should be liable, barring specific and well-documented misuse/misconfigurartion. Let the corporations assess the risk/reward themselves.

If AI means "self-aware, intelligent system": Not a problem I expect to worry about in the foreseeable future, but when it happens the AI can be liable instead of the manufacturer if it has been recognized as having legal personhood.

Re:Exactly the same one who is liable....

[mark-t]

In the UK, the difference in how they are treated is only in that cats have an implicit "right to roam" unless there are specific extenuating circumstances that will overrule it, while dogs must always be kept confined or on a leash unless there are extenuating circumstances that can overrule that. Cat owners in the UK are still expected to take reasonable steps to prevent their cat causing harm to others or damage to others' property, and they can be held responsible for their pet's actions, even while it was outside of their immediate control and care. So yes, there is a difference in how they are managed: cat owners can generally legally allow their cats to roam anywhere at any time of day or night, and dog owners cannot, but cat owners are not actually any less responsible for their pet's actions than dog owners in the UK. An owner's responsibility with an AI or robot would probably be quite similar to that of a cat.... either way, however, the owner is responsible for the actions of their property.