Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jfdlsjfd" data-source="post: 9705523" data-attributes="member: 42856">This is true. Or at least we're agreeing on this.No, I wasn't. I was saying initially that consensus would be impossible to find because there are lot of nuanced situation between countries (and within countries in some case, as you correctly added). Limitations on what a technological tool should or should not do will depend on the legal framework applicable to the market it is sold in, resulting in probably different outcomes.Well, if you had the impression I was making a general statement, maybe I wasn't clear. I was just saying that using a country-specific legal framework to dictate what a product should or should not do won't give a useful result in general.It also has provisions that take into account user's responsability, with nuanced situations, so a general statement on the AI operator being liable when giving bad advice after warning the user not to use it within a specific context was too broad to be applicable. A user that is told not to use an AI for X, and that do X nonetheless, might see his ability to claim damage from the manufacturer lessened or suppressed in some situations.The product liability directive doesn't change the criteria for establishing liability (<table style='width: 100%'><tr><td></td><td>In light of the imposition on economic operators of liability irrespective of fault, and with a view to achieving a fair apportionment of risk, a person that claims compensation for damage caused by a defective product should bear the burden of proving the damage, the defectiveness of a product and the causal link between the two, in accordance with the standard of proof applicable under national law.)</td></tr></table>What was found was that establishing the link between the AI-produced result and the defectiveness of the product was difficult with AI and sometimes impossible (in certain Member State), especially in light of a few rulings where algorithmically produced result, even if harmful, were deemed not to fall within the realm of liability. Hence the effort to draw an harmonization directive for the future.Where did I say that you were wrong with US liability? When you claimed that the rebuttal to your mention that liability works as you say was criticized as being ONE EXAMPLE ONLY, I did mention that it was incorrect (my position wasn't to dismiss this as a one-off example, but I was still saying that using location-specific constraint to determine what an AI should be able to do or not wasn't going be fruitful). It implied no wrong with you -- a misunderstanding can lie with both part of the conversation.I told you that made a generalization, which apparently I misread from your post since you clarify that you didn't intend to make a general statement. I apologize for misunderstanding your post, which came among a lot of generalizations in other posts in the thread. I had no intent to say you're wrong about how things would work in the US or even common law countries. Indeed, I don't think conversing with someone claiming to repeatedly insult my professional skill is productive either, so it's certainly best we don't engage with each other.</blockquote>

Verification