"“The law tends to assume that people intend what they do, or at least are able to foresee the consequences of what they do,” said Ryan Calo, an assistant professor of law at the Univ. of Washington’s School of Law, in an exclusive interview with R&D Magazine.
The prospect of systems making decisions with no personal foresight could result in personal injury with no perpetrator responsible. “And that’s the concern,” he said.
In a paper titled “Robotics and Lessons of Cyberlaw,” Calo explores how the development of cyberlaw starting in the 1990s could provide a foundation regarding how the law deals with the transformative technology of robotics.
It’s time to start building an expertise among lawmakers in the relevant technology, Calo said.
“This particular article represents my most current thinking,” and “I’ve been thinking about the concepts for a few years now,” he added.
The implications of emergent speech has been explored by Univ. of Idaho College of Law professor Annemarie Bridy. Bridy in a paper exploring artificial intelligence authorship states intellectual ownership of a work generated by artificial intelligence, in accordance with the way the law is currently configured, can’t be transferred because the author “has no legal personhood.”"
- Date Published:07/17/2015
- Original Publication:R&D Magazine