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

51–60 of 75 posts

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

#51

Post by roughly »

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.

Legally liable is one thing, but if you contribute to a piece of software that has real-world consequences - your trading algorithm generated the money used to fund an election, your guidance software was used to bomb civilians, your algorithmic tweaks led to vaccine denialism becoming widespread - that's consequences of your actions. You can dress it up any way you want - you've got bills to pay, you were ordered to do so, you didn't see it coming, you can't control how people use your software - but at the end of the day, you contributed to those outcomes.

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

#52

Post by otterley »

lesuorac wrote: post #41
roughly wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 we…

> Making tools is just not a liable line of work.

The law says otherwise. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/products_liability

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

#53

Post by Retric »

cgriswald wrote: post #46
Retric wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What I think people are ignoring is choosing to be an early adopter of fully autonomous self driving vehicles is itself going to be questioned.

Being the first member of the general public to use a 100% self driving car the first day it’s available might even be considered reckless if it then crashes that day.

Later of is a model is preforming poorly operating such a vehicle could be called into question etc.

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

#54

Post by cgriswald »

breadwinner wrote: post #32
opawlowski wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

thats a different bill from last session.

I am going by the bill id AB-316: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...

AB-316 isn't a unique id. Each session restarts the bill numbers. You're referencing AB-316 (2023-2024) while the linked bill is AB-316 (2025-2026).

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

#57

Post by TZubiri »

otterley wrote: post #50
codr7 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's also a separate issue. One thing is whether we are responsible for our work,and another is whether employers or employees are responsible.

In the second case responsibility doesn't vanish, it is transferred.

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

#58

Post by Retric »

jdietrich wrote: post #47
Retric wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 manufacture…

You’re making this seem easier than it is. Even just convincing people the brakes actually failed is a hurdle.

Someone trying to defend themselves by saying the brakes failed needs to show the brakes alone are the cause of the accident rather just a contributing factor. So there was no alternative like using a parking brake and the driver didn’t get into an unsafe situation.

Similarly the failure must be sudden and not predictable etc.

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

#59

Post by grepfru_it »

doctorpangloss wrote: post #27
grepfru_it wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Google provides me a list of California law firms willing to defend against a pedal confusion liability claim. Maybe I’m missing something?

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

#60

Post by lesuorac »

otterley wrote: post #52
lesuorac wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 we…

> Making tools is just not a liable line of work. The law says otherwise. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/products_liability

If I sell you a hammer and the hammer breaks sure I'm liable.

If I sell you a hammer and you hammer in somebody's head, I'm not liable.

The second scenario is what we're actually talking about for developers. If I write VoIP code and you use it to commit ransomware; nobody is taking a developer to court over it. At best corporate is going to court.

Even in the first scenario, you can't sue the individual worker that produced the hammer. You're limited to getting a refund or replacement of the hammer from corporate.

Post reply on HN