No liability should apply while coding. When that code is deployed for use, there should be liability if it is unfit for its intended use. If your AI falsely denies my insurance claim, your ass should be on the line.
Comment on A courts reporter wrote about a few trials. Then an AI decided he was actually the culprit.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 month agobecause when you provide computer code for money you don’t want there to be any liability assigned
futatorius@lemm.ee 1 month ago
medgremlin@midwest.social 1 month ago
Which is why, in many cases, there should be liability assigned. If a self-driving car kills someone, the programming of the car is at least partially to blame, and the company that made it should be liable for the wrongful death suit, and probably for criminal charges as well. Citizens United already determined that corporations are people…now we just need to put a corporation in prison for their crimes.
futatorius@lemm.ee 1 month ago
No, it is not. It is the use to which the system has been put that is the point at which blame can be assigned. That is what should be verified and validated. That’s where some person is signing on the dotted line that the system is fit for use for that particular purpose.
I can write a simplistic algorithm to guide a toy drone autonomously. So let’s say I GPL it. If an airplane manufacturer then drops that code into an airliner, and fail to test it correctly in scenarios resembling real=life use of that plane, they’re the ones who fucked up, not me.