Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New California bill might block the "AI did it" defense in civil cases

veeto.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 75 posts

Re: New California bill might block the "AI did it" defense in civil cases

#21

Post by techjamie »

dzink wrote: post #12
rileymat2 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This bill would prohibit a defendant that developed or used artificial intelligence, as defined, from asserting a defense that the artificial intelligence autonomously caused the harm to the plaintiff. I am not sure the distinction matters?

If you’re driving a self-driving car, you can’t blame it on the car.

That wouldn't work anyway. In basically every jurisdiction, operators of vehicles are expected to retain control of the vehicle regardless of self driving status.

Re: New California bill might block the "AI did it" defense in civil cases

#22

Post by Retric »

Muromec wrote: post #15
dzink wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re driving a self-driving car, you can’t blame it on the car.

You can blame it on a car even if the car is not self-driving

It’s your responsibility to ensure that your breaks etc work.

Presumably it’s also your responsibility to pick and maintain a working self driving system.

Re: New California bill might block the "AI did it" defense in civil cases

#24

Post by cgriswald »

Retric wrote: post #22
Muromec wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can blame it on a car even if the car is not self-driving

It’s your responsibility to ensure that your breaks etc work. Presumably it’s also your responsibility to pick and maintain a working self driving system.

Vehicles have defects and sometimes the manufacturer is at fault for accidents.

The upstream poster is correct. This new law has no relevance to who is liable. It would simply remove "the AI did it" as a valid defense in any case (with whatever exceptions are defined in the existing law referenced).

Re: New California bill might block the "AI did it" defense in civil cases

#25

Post by echoangle »

Retric wrote: post #22
Muromec wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can blame it on a car even if the car is not self-driving

It’s your responsibility to ensure that your breaks etc work. Presumably it’s also your responsibility to pick and maintain a working self driving system.

I don’t think it’s that binary. You have some duty to make an effort of maintenance but there can still be accidents that are just technical faults no one is really responsible for.

Re: New California bill might block the "AI did it" defense in civil cases

#27

Post by doctorpangloss »

grepfru_it wrote: post #23
doctorpangloss wrote: post #18

Ha ha, can’t say AI did it, but hundreds of people die yearly in California to drivers claiming pEdAl cOnFuSiOn, and that’s okay.

It’s not okay though, what you described is still fault of the driver

Prepare to be pissed off when you punch this stuff into Google and study this issue.

Re: New California bill might block the "AI did it" defense in civil cases

#28

Post by Terr_ »

Muromec wrote: post #15
dzink wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re driving a self-driving car, you can’t blame it on the car.

You can blame it on a car even if the car is not self-driving

I think there's a potential confusion here between different kinds of "blame."

If your robot punches a bystander, you're liable for their hospital bills, separately from whether you're culpable for battery.

Re: New California bill might block the "AI did it" defense in civil cases

#30

Post by Retric »

cgriswald wrote: post #24
Retric wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s your responsibility to ensure that your breaks etc work. Presumably it’s also your responsibility to pick and maintain a working self driving system.

Vehicles have defects and sometimes the manufacturer is at fault for accidents. The upstream poster is correct. This new law has no relevance to who is liable. It would simply remove "the AI did it" as a valid defense in any case (with whatever exceptions are defined in the existing law referenced).

Like the resale of stolen property. The victim can always just sue you, you may be able to sue the person you got it from.
Post reply on HN