Slate and University of Washington have recent articles discussing robotics and the issue of how hard they say it is to even begin to define the nature and scope of robotics, let alone something like liability resulting from harm. They say:
Robots display increasingly emergent behavior...in the sense of wondrous complexity created by simple rules and interactions—permitting the technology to accomplish both useful and unfortunate tasks in unexpected ways. And robots, more so than any technology in history, feel to us like social actors—a tendency so strong that soldiers sometimes jeopardize themselves [livescience.com] to preserve the "lives" of military robots in the field.
[Robotics] combines, arguably for the first time, the promiscuity of information with the capacity to do physical harm. Robotic systems accomplish tasks in ways that cannot be anticipated in advance, and robots increasingly blur the line between person and instrument. Today, software can touch you, which may force courts and regulators to strike a new balance.
This seems like calmly worded yet unnecessary hype that is severely premature. Why not simply hold manufactures and owners responsible like we do now? I suppose this ignores the possibility of eventual development of true AI, where such an entity might be 'a person' who could be sued or thrown in jail. If it's an AI iteration that is only as smart as a dog, then the dog's owner pays if it bites.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday July 27 2015, @12:07PM
MS would be bankrupt many times over if it had taken fiscal responsibility for all the woes its infliced upon the earth with its Windows, IE, and IIS.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves