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

41–50 of 75 posts

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

#41

Post by lesuorac »

roughly wrote: post #11
deadbabe wrote: post #5

This bill sucks, a developer should never be held accountable for software they work on or produce.

That's an insane standard. Your work has real-world consequences, act accordingly.

Eh, I'm not even sure why the developer would ever be held accountable for developing things as required. It's not like a machinist is ever held responsible for a firearm death or a barrel maker is held responsible for an alcohol death.

Making tools is just not a liable line of work. Using the tools or selling the tools historically is. _Brewers_ not barrel makers have been sued for alcohol deaths.

However, if you were to add a backdoor to some software then yeah that's just general crime.

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

#42

Post by tylerchilds »

deadbabe wrote: post #5

This bill sucks, a developer should never be held accountable for software they work on or produce.

My reading of this is that it will be tied to owners, not necessarily authors.

Today, when code does illegal things, the company gets sued.

This applies that to AI as well, which is that employers are liable, not that they can pin it on the dev that actually made the implementation.

You’re still incentivized to not get your employer sued, since you’ll get fired, same as today.

This just removes the “a robot did it” immunity. For self driving cars, this is a win, since if you die due to waymo, your literal death concludes as a hypothetical as it currently stands.

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

#44

Post by inetknght »

TheRealPomax wrote: post #10

It's unclear whether this applies to state law enforcement or only the citizenship. It also seems to focus not on "invalidating the defense" but on "punishing the developers" which is more than a little weird.

> It's unclear whether this applies to state law enforcement or only the citizenship

A few months ago I might have pointed out that nobody is above the law.

Alas, you now have a damn good point.

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

#45

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

The "AI did it" defense as defined in this bill seems like it clearly ought to be valid. If a CNC machine injures someone, and the victim sues the operator, I don't see why he should be unable to argue that it wasn't his fault because the machine malfunctioned.

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

#46

Post by cgriswald »

Retric wrote: post #36
cgriswald wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can always be sued, and this may be a difficult defense to make in practice, but drivers are not generally liable for accidents caused by mechanical failure if the cause is manufacturing defect.

Sure, if you can demonstrate that there’s no reasonable way the fault could have been predicted or avoided then that can get you off the hook. However if your tire blows out you’d be expected to demonstrate that you regularly inspect them for ware or damage and there hasn’t been a recall etc. That same level of proactive care is going to be applied to self driving systems.

I don’t see anyone really disputing that. To the extent I’ve participated in this thread it has been to make clear:

1. Both car manufacturers and car drivers can be liable, even with self-driving cars. Any confusion here is likely due to conflating the car with the car manufacturer.

2. The proposed law wouldn’t assign liability, it would simply remove “the AI did it” as a possible legal defense.

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

#47

Post by jdietrich »

Retric wrote: post #33
echoangle wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Good luck arguing that to a jury. It’s true in some cases the manufacturer or car mechanic etc is at fault rather than the owner, but it’s difficult to offload responsibility to a 3rd party.

People (or rather their insurers) successfully argue that to a jury all the time. If your vehicle is serviced by a professional mechanic according to the manufacturer's recommendations, it's very difficult to argue that you're liable for the consequences if your brakes suddenly fail. You took all reasonable steps to ensure that your vehicle was in a roadworthy condition. If you didn't bother to follow the manufacturer's recommendations, then you're on your own.

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

#48

Post by malfist »

gweinberg wrote: post #39

Has "the AI did it" ever been a valid defense? I can see why the legislature might want to make it explicit that it is not, but surely it can't be the case that harm caused by an AI is treated as if it were an act of God.

Not yet probably, but "too expensive to comply" is a common refrain from big tech when they break the law. Look at all the excuses Uber has made

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

#49

Post by DerekL »

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 think you meant “brakes”.

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

#50

Post by otterley »

codr7 wrote: post #40
roughly wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an insane standard. Your work has real-world consequences, act accordingly.

Hm, once we draw that line a shit ton of people will have to start asking difficult questions about their work. Not saying it's a bad idea, but it has consequences that I suspect you have not considered. It's very rare for the people writing the code to have any say in what it does.

> It's very rare for the people writing the code to have any say in what it does.

That's no defense. Employment is voluntary, and you cannot break the law while doing your job, even if your employer commands you to.

Post reply on HN