Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT

AI and law.

(1/6) > >>

The real John Smith:
On the surface it seems a few of the robots in the series have chosen to break the law for their own reasons.
Is it the fault of the individual robots for having mad the choice or is it a fault in the design?
I'm not asking if it's better to have the free will to participate in theft, violence etc...
My question is while the robots are held accountable for their actions, who's held responsible for a bot's predisposition? Wouldn't it be negligent of the manufacturer to allow a bot to want to break the law when should the event occur, they are sent to robot prison until they learn to overcome their programming?

Mr_Rose:
Speaking only to QC-verse AI:

Robot shells for AIs are manufactured independently of the "crèche" where their minds do their basic development from their initial seed. That crèche apparently handles all AIs and the detailed personality outcome of a particular seed is not predictable by any method faster than just letting it grow. So who do you sue? The body is just a shell and can be changed, and there's no way for the manufacturer to tell what "sort" of AI is going to inhabit it even assuming there's no secondary market or mistaken handling, both of which we know to happen. The crèche may have "raised" the AI but it also raised thousands of individuals without criminal tendencies, plus it possibly isn't a legal person itself and thus can't be sued.

Plus, how many times do parents get prosecuted when their children commit crimes?

Maybe if you could prove that a given set of seed values reliably produce criminal personalities and that the someone has been deliberately reusing those values, with that knowledge in mind, to create new AIs; then it might be possible to sue them. But given that AIs have full citizenship it would probably have to be the individuals created in such a way suing their "parent" under child abuse law rather than any other entity suing them for "creating criminals" - which is, in itself, not illegal anywhere I can find.

Is it cold in here?:
A data point is that Jeph said they have "absolute free will".

Valdís would have objected vehemently to the whole idea of free will, and the OP pointed out the existence of predispositions.

We don't know whether the creche affects their personalities in any controllable or even statistically predictable way.

Now, in a VR environment their personalities could be tested. Sending someone with impulse control problems out without warning employers might cause a negligence claim.

JimC:

--- Quote from: Mr_Rose on 23 Nov 2016, 23:46 ---Plus, how many times do parents get prosecuted when their children commit crimes?
--- End quote ---
Yep. Assuming robot rights and human rights are identical, there are plenty of human children engendered with genetic/environmental/social circumstances that mean the odds of them managing to avoid a criminal/severely antisocial life are not great. There's a whole ethical minefield there that I don't propose to enter. But the interesting question for the AI universe is are the rights to engender a new AI person unlimited, as they are with human persons, or not.  And if not, is that right also limited for humans in the AI universe?

BenRG:
All indications are that AIs tend to have better 'upbringings' than most humans, mostly because they are basically created as consumer products and quality control is thus a priority to the labs compiling the algorithms. That said, they are conscious, reasoning beings and all reasoning things have the ability to develop attitudes, conclusions and behaviour patterns based on their interpretations and experience of their wider environment (One example: "Humans are dumb, hormone-dominated animals; they are easy to exploit and so I will because... well Darwin would understand.").

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page