[SystemSafety] AI and the virtuous test Oracle

[Peter Bernard Ladkin]

On 2023-06-22 03:32 , Phil Koopman wrote:
> 
> I propose that to the degree that "AI" technology is deployed in a way that supplants practical 
> human judgement, the manufacturer of that system (in some cases just the AI part if it is an add-on 
> component) should be held accountable for any action (or inaction) that, if associated with the 
> human that was supplanted, would have constituted negligence.

What's so special about ML-SW? Why should this not apply to any software-based function whatsoever?

However, there is a long tradition of SW providers avoiding liability for damage caused by use of 
their products. The "shrink-wrap warranty": none at all.

Given the successful pervasive resistance over 4+ decades to changing the legal situation around the 
"shrink-wrap warranty", what are the chances that it will change with the advent of "black-box" 
functionality? (To most users, SW offers "black box" functionality anyway: they don't know what it 
does and can't read or evaluate  engineering specifications.)

PBL

Prof. i.R. Dr. Peter Bernard Ladkin, Bielefeld, Germany
Tel+msg +49 (0)521 880 7319  www.rvs-bi.de




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 840 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/pipermail/systemsafety/attachments/20230622/4ce6859f/attachment.sig>