• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Ethical / legal question

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Ethical / legal question

    Let's suppose someone created an actual AI and it did something criminal, like hacking into a bank or something, without the knowledge or control of the creator.

    Where would they stand legally? Presumably the writer of the AI code would be culpable for the crime as the AI would have no legal status of it's own

    What about if it was done on behalf of a company? Presumably the company then becomes liable in the same way that e.g. BP was liable for the gulf oil spill

    What about if it was a group endeavour?

    What about if the AI had written new parts of itself of which the creator had no knowledge or understanding?
    While you're waiting, read the free novel we sent you. It's a Spanish story about a guy named 'Manual.'

    #2
    You'd have liability for any damage caused. You're responsible for making sure your tools are properly controlled.

    If I leave my car parked on a hill, didn't put the hand brake on and the car rolls down the hill and demolishes a greenhouse then I could be sued for damages, but it seems unlikely I'd be charged with criminal damage.
    Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
      You'd have liability for any damage caused. You're responsible for making sure your tools are properly controlled.

      If I leave my car parked on a hill, didn't put the hand brake on and the car rolls down the hill and demolishes a greenhouse then I could be sued for damages, but it seems unlikely I'd be charged with criminal damage.
      Unless you can prove its sentient , if it passes Turing test?
      Last edited by vetran; 12 August 2013, 17:57. Reason: corrected term
      Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

      Comment


        #4
        As the law currently stands, AIs have no legal status. They are just computer programs. The Turing test would only prove that it was legally alive if the courts/legislators chose to allow that definition.

        For a full treatment of the ethics of AI, I recommend "I Robot" by Isaac Asimov.
        Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
          As the law currently stands, AIs have no legal status. They are just computer programs. The Turing test would only prove that it was legally alive if the courts/legislators chose to allow that definition.

          For a full treatment of the ethics of AI, I recommend "I Robot" by Isaac Asimov.
          By proving it sentient it would open that can of worms and force the decision. Possibly a Better book/Story dealing the subject would be Bicentennial Man. I Robot looks at the way you can design Robots to be good based on the 3 laws. Bicentennial Man looks at making them responsible for themselves.
          Last edited by vetran; 12 August 2013, 17:58. Reason: corrected term
          Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by vetran View Post
            By proving it alive.
            What is the legal test for "proving it alive"?

            My cat is alive but it cannot commit a crime.
            Originally posted by MaryPoppins
            I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
            Originally posted by vetran
            Urine is quite nourishing

            Comment


              #7
              Short circuit - number 5 is alive!

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by d000hg View Post
                What is the legal test for "proving it alive"?

                My cat is alive but it cannot commit a crime.
                good point - bad choice of words, so the bar is set at legally responsible, but if it passes the Turing test then its considered sufficiently developed to think compared to a human. However clever your cat I'm not sure it could pass the Turing test. does that make it legally responsible if it does? Should we have a Pussy Prison? Hence the core theme in Bicentennial man.
                Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by vetran View Post
                  good point - bad choice of words, so the bar is set at legally responsible, but if it passes the Turing test then its considered sufficiently developed to think compared to a human.
                  Where do you get that idea from? The Turing Test is in no way whatsoever a test of independent thought.
                  Originally posted by MaryPoppins
                  I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
                  Originally posted by vetran
                  Urine is quite nourishing

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
                    You'd have liability for any damage caused. You're responsible for making sure your tools are properly controlled.

                    If I leave my car parked on a hill, didn't put the hand brake on and the car rolls down the hill and demolishes a greenhouse then I could be sued for damages, but it seems unlikely I'd be charged with criminal damage.
                    I would think that there would be a 'reasonable' test applied.

                    If you leave your handbrake half on and it rolls downhill following a significant earthquake in North London, you probably can't be expected to be held to account if in the absence of an earthquake it would have been fine.

                    With the AI, if you have been careful and taken reasonable precautions and could not have reasonably foreseen the outcome, but due to some previously unknown factor, it has gone on the rampage, and you subsequently take prompt action to alert the authorities and attempt to stop it, you may be in the clear.

                    You may remember the Daily Mail style nonsense about people being sued for clearing snow off the pavement in front of their house and then being sued after a pedestrian slips up. I think the truth was that if you had taken reasonable care, then you are not culpable even if the fall is a result of your action. If however you just throw a bucket of water onto the snow and watch it freeze over, then you may be culpable.

                    Just because something bad happens as a result of your action, does not necessarily mean you are legally responsible.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X