Slashdot Mirror
Europe Divided Over Robot 'Personhood' (politico.eu)
Politico Europe has an interesting piece which looks at the high-stakes debate between European lawmakers, legal experts and manufacturers over who should bear the ultimate responsibility for the actions by a machine: the machine itself or the humans who made them?. Two excerpts from the piece: The battle goes back to a paragraph of text, buried deep in a European Parliament report from early 2017, which suggests that self-learning robots could be granted "electronic personalities." Such a status could allow robots to be insured individually and be held liable for damages if they go rogue and start hurting people or damaging property.
Those pushing for such a legal change, including some manufacturers and their affiliates, say the proposal is common sense. Legal personhood would not make robots virtual people who can get married and benefit from human rights, they say; it would merely put them on par with corporations, which already have status as "legal persons," and are treated as such by courts around the world.
Those pushing for such a legal change, including some manufacturers and their affiliates, say the proposal is common sense. Legal personhood would not make robots virtual people who can get married and benefit from human rights, they say; it would merely put them on par with corporations, which already have status as "legal persons," and are treated as such by courts around the world.
Have gnu, will travel.
This is yet another push by businesses to avoid accountability for complex systems they create.
Until General Artificial Intelligence (the scary kind) is a thing, liability for the performance of an automated system should be on
A) the manufacturer (for provable negligence in testing and implementation)
B)The operating agency (for cases of knowingly misusing a system in such a way that it causes harm even if operating within tested-by-manufacturer parameters)
C) "the victim" - in the exceedingly rare case that a using company is doing everything right and Joe Blow decides to try machine tipping while the device is in operation despite all safety warnings and obstacles put in his way. Npte, this clause would not apply if a using company ordered someone into that situation. The threshold of proof for being 'ordered to' should be absurdly low. I.e. even mentioning that someone doing something incredibly dangerous reverts liability to operator.