Hacker News Reader

Comment by zulban | Hacker News Reader

Indeed. It's another example of a law that sounds good and obvious, but has no thought put into what it would actually end up doing to the world.

So many other problems. If we apply this law to cruise control - simple outcome. We get no cruise control.

View on HN

We still have guns and knives and nail guns and even cars. They automate something, but also have potential to injure and kill. You just weigh the pros and cons. You don't just not do something because there's a risk of death. Cars are basically metal coffins. Just don't drive when drunk, etc? Basic competence and operational safety and responsibility? If cruise control made you free from blame everyone would just be driving drunk off their ass with cruise control on. How is that more thought out?

If you engage cruise control, and it starts to accelerate uncontrollable, or swerves your steering wheel sharply and causes an accident, then you can sue the manufacturer. The cruise control did not work as intended.

The reason why we have cruise control is that manufacturers went to great lengths to make sure that it works as intended. Threat of lawsuits is what made them do that.

Do you think you are liability free if you’re operating a car on cruise control and it kills someone?

No. But almost always, the car company is fine.

The OP was suggesting whoever deploys the agent has liability for its actions, not the creators of the models the agents are running.

I hate to break it to you, but you are currently still responsible for killing somebody while driving a car on cruise control, especially if you act recklessly.

EDIT: to be less snarky, there are obvious exceptions if a manufacturer defect is involved. But I still imagine it turns on things like foreseeability and proximate cause (IANAL). Nevertheless, if you were asleep at the wheel, you're getting held responsible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com