11–20 of 32 posts
That said, if you decide to keep any drugs you get from the not rather than immediately disposing of them, you've demonstrated the requisite intent to be guilty of possession, so there's that.
In the US, I suspect a prosecutor would successfully gain a conviction against the bot's operator. This verdict would be repeated several times over a dozen years before any judge or jury ever tried to see it another way. And, IMHO, the only other way this could possibly result in anything other than trouble for the operator is if these bots were not only self-replicating, but also self-funding. They'd have to earn f…
I've often thought about how long until an entire system can be automated to the point where zero humans are involved - not in the running, maintenance, making money to hire the servers to run it...how would the law deal with such a system? How would society? The closest analogy I can think of is legal trusts, that have a stated purpose with little room for interpretation, but still has a human performing the operati…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've often thought about how long until an entire system can be automated to the point where zero humans are involved - not in the running, maintenance, making money to hire the servers to run it...how would the law deal with such a system? How would society? The closest analogy I can think of is legal trusts, that have a stated purpose with little room for interpretation, but still has a human performing the operati…
We'd probably just deal with it the way we'd deal with wild animals and other things that ignore human laws. You might have some people with an interest in the legal rights of automated software just as some people have an interest in the legal rights of animals. But at the end of day, a dog can't appear in court and neither can a computer. So if humans decide to collectively work together to terminate a rogue piece…
I find the legal culpability of this fascinating. Right now it is an extremely concrete example, and really easy to say that the originator of the bot is at blame and should be prosecuted for buying illegal items. But, how advanced does a bot have to be before it itself is at blame? What if they'd programmed it to reach out and purchase from any vendor it could find? What if it wasn't programmed to do anything but ma…
I find the legal culpability of this fascinating. Right now it is an extremely concrete example, and really easy to say that the originator of the bot is at blame and should be prosecuted for buying illegal items. But, how advanced does a bot have to be before it itself is at blame? What if they'd programmed it to reach out and purchase from any vendor it could find? What if it wasn't programmed to do anything but ma…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We'd probably just deal with it the way we'd deal with wild animals and other things that ignore human laws. You might have some people with an interest in the legal rights of automated software just as some people have an interest in the legal rights of animals. But at the end of day, a dog can't appear in court and neither can a computer. So if humans decide to collectively work together to terminate a rogue piece…
What if it formed (or was) a corporation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We'd probably just deal with it the way we'd deal with wild animals and other things that ignore human laws. You might have some people with an interest in the legal rights of automated software just as some people have an interest in the legal rights of animals. But at the end of day, a dog can't appear in court and neither can a computer. So if humans decide to collectively work together to terminate a rogue piece…
What if it formed (or was) a corporation?
In the US, I suspect a prosecutor would successfully gain a conviction against the bot's operator. This verdict would be repeated several times over a dozen years before any judge or jury ever tried to see it another way. And, IMHO, the only other way this could possibly result in anything other than trouble for the operator is if these bots were not only self-replicating, but also self-funding. They'd have to earn f…
How could an independent bot (legitamately) earn bitcoins? A cheap vps to live on would be $5/mo, so it wouldn't take that much. It would need to provide some sort of service that doesn't require human intervention, and is worth paying for. Darknet markets take bitcoin, and at least some VPS providers do as well, so no need to get "real" bank accounts and evade know-your-customer.
Perhaps it could make and sell artworks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if it formed (or was) a corporation?
I think Charles Stross(?) has featured this in books, with creations with bylaws that can be resolved as software instructions creating other corporations with bylaws resolved as software instructions, etc, with assorted corporations appointed as officers of others, creating tremendously deep layers of autonomous shell corporations.
I find the legal culpability of this fascinating. Right now it is an extremely concrete example, and really easy to say that the originator of the bot is at blame and should be prosecuted for buying illegal items. But, how advanced does a bot have to be before it itself is at blame? What if they'd programmed it to reach out and purchase from any vendor it could find? What if it wasn't programmed to do anything but ma…
There is a bot called WallStreet that is never to blame for anything it does, which really is much more fascinating.