[rileymat2]

> This bill would prohibit a defendant that developed or used artificial intelligence, as defined, from asserting a defense that the artificial intelligence autonomously caused the harm to the plaintiff.

I am not sure the distinction matters?

[dzink]

If you’re driving a self-driving car, you can’t blame it on the car.

[Muromec]

You can blame it on a car even if the car is not self-driving

[Terr_]

I think there's a potential confusion here between different kinds of "blame."

If your robot punches a bystander, you're liable for their hospital bills, separately from whether you're culpable for battery.

[kjs3]

Perhaps you can cite when this was tested in court, because "robot punches man" isn't something I've noted in the headlines. Otherwise, it's nothing but speculation.

[Retric]

It’s your responsibility to ensure that your breaks etc work.

Presumably it’s also your responsibility to pick and maintain a working self driving system.

[cgriswald]

Vehicles have defects and sometimes the manufacturer is at fault for accidents.

The upstream poster is correct. This new law has no relevance to who is liable. It would simply remove "the AI did it" as a valid defense in any case (with whatever exceptions are defined in the existing law referenced).

[Retric]

Like the resale of stolen property. The victim can always just sue you, you may be able to sue the person you got it from.

[cgriswald]

You can always be sued, and this may be a difficult defense to make in practice, but drivers are not generally liable for accidents caused by mechanical failure if the cause is manufacturing defect.

[Muromec]

>Presumably it’s also your responsibility to pick and maintain a working self driving system.

I guess it's reasonable to say I should apply updates and get the car serviced and make sure the sensors are not obstructed, yes. Then the difference between "self driving" and "assisting" technology would be a matter of guarantee the manufacturer advertises.

Would it (hypothetically) be reasonable for me to expect that the thing will suddenly break on a highway in normal conditions without anything obstructing the way forward? No, I don't think so. Can I do something to prevent it or foresee it, except not using the self-driving technology at all? Can I choose to have a different self-driving tech installed in my car and retrain the model or control it's behavior in any way at all?

There are different answers to that and I guess the answers will also change over time.

[echoangle]

I don’t think it’s that binary. You have some duty to make an effort of maintenance but there can still be accidents that are just technical faults no one is really responsible for.

[Retric]

Good luck arguing that to a jury.

It’s true in some cases the manufacturer or car mechanic etc is at fault rather than the owner, but it’s difficult to offload responsibility to a 3rd party.

[jdietrich]

People (or rather their insurers) successfully argue that to a jury all the time. If your vehicle is serviced by a professional mechanic according to the manufacturer's recommendations, it's very difficult to argue that you're liable for the consequences if your brakes suddenly fail. You took all reasonable steps to ensure that your vehicle was in a roadworthy condition. If you didn't bother to follow the manufacturer's recommendations, then you're on your own.

[DerekL]

I think you meant “brakes”.

[techjamie]

That wouldn't work anyway. In basically every jurisdiction, operators of vehicles are expected to retain control of the vehicle regardless of self driving status.

[bobthepanda]

I think it’s useful for legislators to do their job and explicitly define and clarify the boundaries of the law. You can’t necessarily just rely on precedent for new things.