A Legal Challenge to Algorithmic Recommendations

Regulation required.

A Legal Challenge to Algorithmic Recommendations

By Pamela Samuelson

Communications of the ACM, March 2023, Vol. 66 No. 3, Pages 32-34

Credit: Andrij Borys Associates

A young American student, Nohemi Gonzalez, was one of 149 people murdered in Paris in 2015 by ISIS terrorists. Her family blames Google for her death, claiming that YouTube's algorithms provided material support to the terrorist organization by recommending violent and radicalizing ISIS videos to its users based on their previous viewing histories. (The Gonzalez complaint levies the same charges against Twitter and Facebook, but to keep things simple, this column refers only to Google.)

Gonzalez' family sued Google for damages for this wrongful death. Both a trial and an appellate court agreed with Google that it could not be held liable for this tragic death under a federal immunity shield widely known as § 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). However, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear Gonzalez' appeal and consider whether YouTube's algorithmic recommendations are beyond the shelter of § 230.... '

AI and Liability

Is this different from more general liability issues?  Does it matter in how the technology is seen by consumers, patients?   As intelligent? .   In the last AI efforts we talked with with company lawyers.  Insurance Implications?  Different than algorithms in general?  Embedded Bias? 

ACM OPINION

Who Is Liable when AI Kills?   By Scientific American, February 21, 2023

An autonomous vehicle drives on a road using its sensors to understand its surroundings.

The benefits of AI should not be undercut by poorly developed algorithms: 21st-century AI demands a 21st-century liability system.

Credit: Sergii Iaremenko/Science Photo Library/Getty Images

Our current liability system—used to determine responsibility and payment for injuries—is unprepared for artificial intelligence (AI). Liability rules were designed for a time when humans caused most injuries.

With AI, errors may occur without any direct human input. The liability system needs to adjust accordingly. Bad liability policy will not just stifle AI innovation; it will also harm patients and consumers.

From The Scientific American

View Full Article (May Require Paid Registration)  

Examining AI Liability

 Good overview of the topic and related liability issues, we looked at this in early AI and analytical applications. Now especially applicable in automated vehicles.

Who Is Liable when AI Kills?

We need to change rules and institutions while still promoting innovation to protect people from faulty AI       By George Maliha, Ravi B. Parikh on June 29, 2022    in SCIAM

Who is responsible when AI harms someone?

A California jury may soon have to decide. In December 2019, a person driving a Tesla with an artificial intelligence driving system killed two people in Gardena in an accident. The Tesla driver faces several years in prison. In light of this and other incidents, both the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) and National Transportation Safety Board are investigating Tesla crashes, and NHTSA has recently broadened its probe to explore how drivers interact with Tesla systems. On the state front, California is considering curtailing the use of Tesla autonomous driving features.

Our current liability system—our system to determine responsibility and payment for injuries—is completely unprepared for AI. Liability rules were designed for a time when humans caused the majority of mistakes or injuries. Thus, most liability frameworks place punishments on the end-user doctor, driver or other human who caused an injury. But with AI, errors may occur without any human input at all. The liability system needs to adjust accordingly. Bad liability policy will harm patients, consumers and AI developers.   .... ' 

Liability and the Self Driving Car

In the CACM, about the process of self driving, and how that links to specific liability.

Here's Why Self-Driving Cars May Never Really Be Self-Driving
By Computerworld   February 24, 2017

Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) are exploring myriad unpredictable issues with autonomous car technology that might be solved with embedded software to avoid accidents.

Their proof-of-concept KeYmarea X software seeks to determine how self-driving cars should reason through all possible accident scenarios, and determine when to switch control over to human drivers.

Regulations governing self-driving vehicle liability currently are lacking, so insurance firms will likely litigate against the automaker for accident claims and not the driver. .... " 

Regulation and Liability of Cognitive Machines

" ... Our Cognitive Systems Institute Group Speaker Series call this week,   on Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 10:30 am ET (7:30 am PT).  Our presenter on Thursday is Erin Burke, Assistant Dean & Director of Pre-Law Advising at Fordham University , who will be presenting "Regulation and Liability of Cognitive Machines ."    I hope you will join the call.    Slides here.

Dial-In Number(s):   888-426-6840, Participant Code:  48982031.  Dial in on the phone and also Join Web meeting:  https://apps.na.collabserv.com/meetings/join?id=2894-8491password=cognitive.  Non-IBMers, please use the "guest" option.   

Please find the schedule of presenters here for the next several calls and please sign up for making a presentation by sending a note to me (fodell@us.ibm.com).   A link to slides (if used) and a recording of each call will be available on the CSIG website (http://cognitive-science.info/community/weekly-update/).   

We encourage those who join the calls to add questions and comments to the https://www.linkedin.com/groups/Cognitive-Systems-Institute-6729452 on LinkedIn and we ask that you ask questions at the end of the call. ... "