I don’t see how regular tort principles wouldn’t be adequate for this. If people are worried about liability going too far, I’m sure the CPSA can promulgate some robot rules to provide Geier pre-emption.
Even Asimov’s Three Laws aren’t a guarantee of proper behavior. In fact, many of his robot stories were written to exploit various loopholes or potential conflicts. And, as the future police officer Elijah Bailey points out, a robot must first realize it is breaking one of the Laws in order to have them become a factor. If you wanted to commit a crime, an Asimovian robot could make a very good unknowing accomplice.
In the hypothetical from the linked posting, I don’t see how hacking a robot to make it burn a house down would mean liability would extend to the robot’s engineer, software programmer, etc., unless the robot was engineers or programmed with that function. To hold third parties liable for intentionally misusing the machine would be akin to holding a third party liable for some Darwin Award candidate who uses a kitchen knife to bridge an electrical circuit. If you want to hold someone liable, how about starting with the fellas who hacked the robot?
To hold third parties liable for intentionally misusing the machine would be akin to holding a third party liable for some Darwin Award candidate who uses a kitchen knife to bridge an electrical circuit. If you want to hold someone liable, how about starting with the fellas who hacked the robot?
Or how about holding a gun manufacturer liable for the death of someone who was shot by someone holding a gun created by that manufacturer? Similar (erroneous) principle.
8 Comments
If they are designed according to Asimov’s 3 Laws of Robotics, there won’t be any problems;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_laws_of_robotics
I don’t see how regular tort principles wouldn’t be adequate for this. If people are worried about liability going too far, I’m sure the CPSA can promulgate some robot rules to provide Geier pre-emption.
Would common law as to damages caused by peoples animals apply here?
Would it be in an owner’s interest to try and forcibly emancipate a troublesome robot?
So no ones tripped over a Roomba yet? And if they do how would this be different the tripping over a kids toy like an RC truck.
Even Asimov’s Three Laws aren’t a guarantee of proper behavior. In fact, many of his robot stories were written to exploit various loopholes or potential conflicts. And, as the future police officer Elijah Bailey points out, a robot must first realize it is breaking one of the Laws in order to have them become a factor. If you wanted to commit a crime, an Asimovian robot could make a very good unknowing accomplice.
In the hypothetical from the linked posting, I don’t see how hacking a robot to make it burn a house down would mean liability would extend to the robot’s engineer, software programmer, etc., unless the robot was engineers or programmed with that function. To hold third parties liable for intentionally misusing the machine would be akin to holding a third party liable for some Darwin Award candidate who uses a kitchen knife to bridge an electrical circuit. If you want to hold someone liable, how about starting with the fellas who hacked the robot?
To hold third parties liable for intentionally misusing the machine would be akin to holding a third party liable for some Darwin Award candidate who uses a kitchen knife to bridge an electrical circuit. If you want to hold someone liable, how about starting with the fellas who hacked the robot?
Or how about holding a gun manufacturer liable for the death of someone who was shot by someone holding a gun created by that manufacturer? Similar (erroneous) principle.