upvote

points

by miltonlost3 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby TaLiTr1 hours ago|
next
[-]
> Soon a robot can commit a murder but nothing will be done because of your line of reasoning.

That's rather hyperbolic.

Are you seriously suggesting in that situation the robot should be accused of murder? The robot's operator could be accused of murder, but it could just be negligence without intent. Because that does, and should matter to the law.

reply
upvoteby pixl9744 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Eh, if your take of this had any bearing to reality than I don't think most of the books written by Isaac Asimov would have gotten very far, but instead they've defined robot science fiction for decades.

In the real world we have no 3 ironclad laws of robotics. We are well aware that putting any sufficiently advanced antigenic system in a body that could be capable of committing a murder eventually will with the right set of prompts and environmental conditions. And these conditions likely have nothing do to with what we'd consider the human motivations for murder.

Hence at this point of time, any agentic robotic system that doesn't have safeguards to keep people distanced from humans is reckless endangerment.

reply
upvoteby TaLiTr21 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
> Eh, if your take of this had any bearing to reality than I don't think most of the books written by Isaac Asimov would have gotten very far, but instead they've defined robot science fiction for decades.

I'm talking about how the law actually works, and you say it's not based in reality and cite fiction books in the same paragraph?

I was talking about how the real robotic systems that actually exist in reality, to be clear.

reply
upvoteby john_strinlai2 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
it's not my line of reasoning, i didn't invent it. it's how the law currently works. intent is the crucial factor in CFAA cases.

maybe that changes down the road as a result of llm's and increasing frequency of similar cases. that has not happened yet.

reply