Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Judge decides case based on AI-hallucinated case law
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jfdlsjfd" data-source="post: 9705523" data-attributes="member: 42856"><p>This is true. Or at least we're agreeing on this.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, I wasn't. I was saying initially that consensus would be impossible to find <em>because </em>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The product liability directive doesn't change the criteria for establishing liability (</p><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><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jfdlsjfd, post: 9705523, 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 [I]because [/I]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 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Judge decides case based on AI-hallucinated case law
Top