Re:What should be sex for AI?
by dragonwriter on Thursday September 22, 2016 @02:24PM
(#12558952)
> Giving software human rights shields authors from responsibility for the actions of their creations.
No, it doesn't, in the same way that employees having human rights doesn't prevent employers from vicarious liability for their acts. Or, as its odd you failed to consider given your overstatement of the degree to which parents are liable for children's acts, just as giving children human rights doesn't mean parents can't have responsibility for their harmful actions.
> Parents are still liable for any thing and law their children break.
This is emphatically not true. Parents may be also liable for some subset of their children's torts (e.g., in California, generally only for torts relating to "acts of willful misconduct resulting in death, personal injury, or property damage", and then only up to $25,000 in liability per tort), but they absolutely are not "liable for any thing and law their children break."
No, it doesn't, in the same way that employees having human rights doesn't prevent employers from vicarious liability for their acts. Or, as its odd you failed to consider given your overstatement of the degree to which parents are liable for children's acts, just as giving children human rights doesn't mean parents can't have responsibility for their harmful actions.
> Parents are still liable for any thing and law their children break.
This is emphatically not true. Parents may be also liable for some subset of their children's torts (e.g., in California, generally only for torts relating to "acts of willful misconduct resulting in death, personal injury, or property damage", and then only up to $25,000 in liability per tort), but they absolutely are not "liable for any thing and law their children break."