[LINK] Google's Driverless Car Is Worth Trillions

[Janet Hawtin]

On 28 January 2013 13:47, Bernard Robertson-Dunn <brd at iimetro.com.au> wrote:
> On 28/01/2013 1:57 PM, Janet Hawtin wrote:
>>>
>>> On 28 January 2013 12:30, Bernard Robertson-Dunn <brd at iimetro.com.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that the legal implications of such technology have been
>>>> worked out yet.
>>
>> Karen Sandler raised another vital example at the Linux Conference 2012
>> http://youtu.be/5XDTQLa3NjE
>
>
> In the world of legal responsibility, is it better to use "open" software or
> proprietary software?

Karen's concern with the heart thing was that even the government
agency responsible for approving that it was safe for use in people
had not looked at the software. How should it be independently
assessed as safe?

> Would you have an AI robot in your house, one which had the capacity, even
> if only in highly unlikely circumstances, to do serious damage? If it did,
> who could you sue?

How do you fix it? Do you have the right to fix it? Preemptively? Make
a better one?
What does agency mean? Agency, by users, by manufacturers, owners?
Can copyright/patent law be adjusted to enable sensible agency by
users/consumers?

j