14 minutes ago, swansont said:

Just because something is not personally experienced by you in no way impacts the truth or validity of others’ experiences. And being a statistical argument, it means that you are looking at the total effect of all events.

Strangely, every person I ever talked to who had cancer was alive when I talked to them. Based this experience I can apparently conclude that cancer is rather benign.

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

Strangely, every person I ever talked to who had cancer was alive when I talked to them. Based this experience I can apparently conclude that cancer is rather benign.

Yup. I’ve never had cancer, ergo it’s no big deal

On 8/25/2025 at 4:38 PM, zapatos said:

It's been my experience that talking on the phone vs talking to a passenger seems much different. In trying to decide why it felt that way to me I concluded it is because the person on the phone is not sharing the driving experience with me and can distract me by continuing to talk when I need to concentrate on driving. A person in the car with me recognizes when I am dealing with a situation that requires my full attention, and thus quits talking for a moment.

If you are talking to a passenger and driving, you can say 'be quiet for a moment' if the situation demands it, so you are able to focus on driving or other drivers.

Just found this course on Futurelearn, which may give some insight into your question

https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/justice-fundamental-rights-and-artificial-intelligence

Paul

Microsoft has recently announced that Copilot is for entertainment only, so I think the lawyers are scared about liability as people blame the AI companies for screwups.

“Copilot is for entertainment purposes only,” the company warned. “It can make mistakes, and it may not work as intended. Don’t rely on Copilot for important advice. Use Copilot at your own risk.”

https://techcrunch.com/2026/04/05/copilot-is-for-entertainment-purposes-only-according-to-microsofts-terms-of-service/

AI will probably have to get over the hurdle that lie detectors never could before being accepted in courts. People will likely try and there will be lawsuits challenging it.

Ain't that convenient, though. "Here is a product that we want to use for all kind of things so that we can train it to be better. However, if there is any liability of any sort that is entirely on you".

For sure, that is the strategy of most large companies, but especially tech has been interwoven so strongly with society via things that folks interact daily, such as social media and now AI, so that the reward/harm balance is way out of whack.

7 hours ago, CharonY said:

Ain't that convenient, though. "Here is a product that we want to use for all kind of things so that we can train it to be better. However, if there is any liability of any sort that is entirely on you".

For sure, that is the strategy of most large companies, but especially tech has been interwoven so strongly with society via things that folks interact daily, such as social media and now AI, so that the reward/harm balance is way out of whack.

In both degree and speed...

On 1/20/2026 at 3:14 PM, Gees said: (In response to Swansont's belief that seatbelts save lives.)
Maybe. I have driven all over the United States, in Europe, on the right side of the road and on the other side, in cars, trucks, rental vehicles, and on motorcycles. I have towed cars, trailers, boats, and campers, but I do not wear seatbelts and have not for most of my life. Yet, I am not dead. It is possible that statistically speaking, seatbelts are not good for me. 😁

On 1/20/2026 at 4:29 PM, swansont said:

Wow, what a crappy argument!

I know that you are intelligent. Maybe that is why I am forever giving you more credit than is apparently warranted. I will try to explain my "crappy" argument. The things listed above are not only about me, they are circumstances that have been researched and found to contribute to accidents -- statistically speaking. Driving on different terrains, like a Michigan flatlander driving down Franklin mountain to meet Highway 10 in El Paso, Texas, with snow on the road (which generally causes a pile up of cars). Or crossing the Rockies pulling a camper, especially after turning onto steep side roads. Or driving in Ireland on the other side of the road, and having the steering wheel on the other side of the car, and using the gear shift with the left hand because it is also backward, then trying to avoid the stone walls that closely edge many of the roads. Of course, driving in downtown Rome at night when they turned all the stop lights into blinking yellow lights both ways was interesting. It took a while to figure out how to cross the streets without hitting another car. Of course, towing a car or backing a boat into the water requires additional skills. Riding a motorcycle requires constant vigilance and specific skills. Car rental companies will tell you that changing vehicles requires extra caution. I have done all of these things without accidents. About the only other things that I could do to encourage accidents -- statistically speaking -- is to drive drunk, which I don't do, or to drive for a living, which I have only occasionally done.

Now you can argue that you are not aware of the research and statistical information that applies to the above, so I have to look up each statistic to prove that this is true. But if you say as much, I will not believe you.

On 1/20/2026 at 4:29 PM, swansont said:

Just because something is not personally experienced by you in no way impacts the truth or validity of others’ experiences.

True, and I didn't state otherwise. If you look at my response above, you will see that I stated, "It is possible that statistically speaking, seatbelts are not good for me." You see that word, "me"? On the other hand, if seatbelts are not good for me, then it is possible that they are not good for some others, as well. We will never know because no one is going to collect data that considers this idea. This is much like the problem of the helmet laws for motorcyclists, which required bikers to wear helmets for years and years, even though helmets were killing people. Many people believed that helmets saved lives -- they did not. But finally the laws changed. One of the problems with statistics is the same as the problem that science has -- confirmation bias. You get answers to questions that you ask -- simple truth. If your premise is faulty and you don't ask the right questions, then you get crap.

On 1/20/2026 at 4:29 PM, swansont said:

And being a statistical argument, it means that you are looking at the total effect of all events.

Yes, all events that apply to that subject, and the subject of that argument was me. That is exactly what I did in my "crappy argument" by listing all of the experiences that were part of my driving record, which should have caused accidents -- statistically speaking. But in truth, statistical arguments do not look at the "total effect", they just look to answer the questions asked.

On 1/20/2026 at 3:14 PM, Gees said:

Yes it is a statistical argument, and statistics are made up of facts -- not truths. The reality is that facts, therefore statistics, are easy to cherry pick, manipulate, and cause an invalid perception. Just look at what comes out of Washington if you want evidence of that truth. I have a lot of issues with statistics and don't trust them.

On 1/20/2026 at 4:29 PM, swansont said:

I’m not sure that willful ignorance is something people find persuasive, especially in a science discussion setting

Oh, I don't know about that. You used it to great effect the last time we argued and got three up votes for it.

On 1/20/2026 at 3:14 PM, Gees said:

In the first place, I worked as a temp in many offices in different capacities for years, and watched clerical workers gathering information (statistics) for bosses, insurance purposes, government agencies, etc. Most workers did not give two sh*ts about the information and saw it as an added, unpaid, responsibility. Would some/many of them fudge the information if it made the job easier? Absolutely.

On 1/20/2026 at 4:29 PM, swansont said:

People being lazy and/or dishonest is an indictment of those people, not statistics. If there is fault to be found you can dig into the methodology for that. But a blanket dismissal is not an argument to be taken seriously.

I suspect that your assumption that the workers were "lazy" or "dishonest" is because they are clerical workers. Would you jump to the same conclusions if they were scientists? I think I was about 15 years old when I first began to doubt statistics. I was reading an article about heart disease in a magazine and how it caused so much death. My Mother and Grandmother were at the dining room table enjoying tea, when I told them about the article. I don't remember the terminology that I used, but they looked at me then at each other then burst out laughing. I didn't see what was so damned funny and said so, but every time one of them tried to explain, they looked at each other and burst out laughing again.

Finally my Mother asked, "What happens when you die?", and my Grandmother replied, "Your heart stops.", then they burst into laughter again. Once they got themselves under control, I learned that in the 45+ years between them that they had worked as nurses, they had witnessed many deaths and knew that heart disease/attack was often used as an explanation for death whether it was causal or not. Of course, that was over 60 years ago and medicine has been much improved since, so that does not happen anymore -- or does it?

Twenty years ago, my husband died of cancer. Everyone knows that he died of cancer, but his Death Certificate states that congestive heart failure contributed to his death, which is not really true. I remember when they diagnosed him with congestive heart failure about six months before he died. I was quite surprised as he was no couch potato; he was very active, had no problems with blood pressure or his cholesterol levels. It made no sense to me. It made no sense to one of the younger doctors either, as he noted that the blood work did not support the diagnosis.

My husband was sent home to die and Hospice was ordered for him. The Hospice doctor immediately took him off the cholesterol medication as my husband's bloodwork confirmed that it was not needed. His congestive heart failure was not caused by his blood. It was caused by the large tumor growing out of the main artery by his spine, which caused so much pressure on his spine that he could not feel his feet. After the surgery, when they tried to remove the tumor (but only got part of it), he was so pleased because he could feel his feet for the first time in a year. He died a few months later.

The Hospice doctor was the one who filled out the Death Certificate, so why did he put congestive heart failure on it? He knew that my husband did not suffer from congestive heart failure, as the enlarged heart was due to the tumor; not cholesterol, high blood pressure, or bad diet/living habits. I would like to suggest that he put it on the certificate because of the rules, regulations, and facts that were required with regard to explaining the death. Much like the clerical workers, who were guided by policy and procedure rather than truth.

So the people gathering statistics and the people studying them will add another lie to their knowledge. Was the doctor "lazy" or "dishonest"? He knew full well that the information would imply a false narrative, but he did it anyway. Would you call that "fudging" the truth so that he would not have to complicate the information? Should he have explained that the congestive heart failure was caused by a tumor? Is there a box for that information on the Certificate? Do the people, who are gathering statistics, want that much information? No.

Truth can be simple; truth can be complex. It can be whole and it can be partial; such as, more true than not, or mostly true, or even occasionally true, or true now, or true from a specific perspective. Truth is rarely easy, which is why we need philosophers to help us find it. If it were easy, we could give it to scientists, they could make up an experiment, test it, and we could all know the truth. But the reality is that in order to fit truth into the little box that defines fact, we will have to corrupt truth.

AI is not about intelligence or truth, it is about assimilating information and statistics. Using statistics to make judgements is like gambling, it is playing the odds. If people want to do that they can, but AI does not belong in a Court of law as it has nothing to do with justice or truth.

Gee

On 8/26/2025 at 12:21 AM, TheVat said:

Also I'm a bit puzzled that talking on the phone would be a ticketable offense

Here in Australia it is an offense - hands-free (bluetooth with on-the-steering wheel or verbal switching) is fine but holding the phone isn't.

It does make sense. The danger isn't so much the talking part, but more from locating a ringing phone, looking to see who the caller is, finding the 'answer' option or conversely, the process of making a call out. Those do require a lot of attention and looking at the phone.

>>Considering all the recent discussions about AI lying to us to satisfy its programming, how should we consider evidence of wrongdoing provided by AI ?

For the topic itself I am more concerned for AI as 'expert witness' than for faking of evidence; it could become problematic (more so with news media than courts) but I think identifying fake images or documents may be less so (probably using a form of AI?) than assessing the competence of AI giving expert testimony. I don't know whether how cross examination might work.

One AI 'expert opinion' seems insufficient for a court but the same 'testimony' across several different, independent AI's may be seen as sufficient - whilst differing testimony would see it rejected.

Edited Saturday at 11:27 PM2 days by Ken Fabian

2 hours ago, Gees said:

Yes, all events that apply to that subject, and the subject of that argument was me. That is exactly what I did in my "crappy argument" by listing all of the experiences that were part of my driving record, which should have caused accidents -- statistically speaking. But in truth, statistical arguments do not look at the "total effect", they just look to answer the questions asked.

A seatbelt doesn’t save lives of people who don’t get into accidents. You only mentioned driving, which means it’s irrelevant to the issue. If you had said you’d been in an accident and didn’t die despite not wearing a seatbelt, that would be an anecdote, but still irrelevant. The combination of the two make it a crappy argument.

In the US, about half of auto accident fatalities were people not wearing seatbelts, yet the vast majority wear seatbelts.

If seatbelts did nothing, the odds of dying would be the same whether or not you wore one. When looking at a large sample (not anecdotes) you’d expect fewer fatalities since there are fewer people in that group.

https://www.thezebra.com/resources/research/seat-belt-statistics/

13 hours ago, Gees said:

On 1/20/2026 at 3:14 PM, Gees said: (In response to Swansont's belief that seatbelts save lives.)
Maybe. I have driven all over the United States, in Europe, on the right side of the road and on the other side, in cars, trucks, rental vehicles, and on motorcycles. I have towed cars, trailers, boats, and campers, but I do not wear seatbelts and have not for most of my life. Yet, I am not dead. It is possible that statistically speaking, seatbelts are not good for me. 😁

I know that you are intelligent. Maybe that is why I am forever giving you more credit than is apparently warranted. I will try to explain my "crappy" argument. The things listed above are not only about me, they are circumstances that have been researched and found to contribute to accidents -- statistically speaking. Driving on different terrains, like a Michigan flatlander driving down Franklin mountain to meet Highway 10 in El Paso, Texas, with snow on the road (which generally causes a pile up of cars). Or crossing the Rockies pulling a camper, especially after turning onto steep side roads. Or driving in Ireland on the other side of the road, and having the steering wheel on the other side of the car, and using the gear shift with the left hand because it is also backward, then trying to avoid the stone walls that closely edge many of the roads. Of course, driving in downtown Rome at night when they turned all the stop lights into blinking yellow lights both ways was interesting. It took a while to figure out how to cross the streets without hitting another car. Of course, towing a car or backing a boat into the water requires additional skills. Riding a motorcycle requires constant vigilance and specific skills. Car rental companies will tell you that changing vehicles requires extra caution. I have done all of these things without accidents. About the only other things that I could do to encourage accidents -- statistically speaking -- is to drive drunk, which I don't do, or to drive for a living, which I have only occasionally done.

Now you can argue that you are not aware of the research and statistical information that applies to the above, so I have to look up each statistic to prove that this is true. But if you say as much, I will not believe you.

True, and I didn't state otherwise. If you look at my response above, you will see that I stated, "It is possible that statistically speaking, seatbelts are not good for me." You see that word, "me"? On the other hand, if seatbelts are not good for me, then it is possible that they are not good for some others, as well. We will never know because no one is going to collect data that considers this idea. This is much like the problem of the helmet laws for motorcyclists, which required bikers to wear helmets for years and years, even though helmets were killing people. Many people believed that helmets saved lives -- they did not. But finally the laws changed. One of the problems with statistics is the same as the problem that science has -- confirmation bias. You get answers to questions that you ask -- simple truth. If your premise is faulty and you don't ask the right questions, then you get crap.

Yes, all events that apply to that subject, and the subject of that argument was me. That is exactly what I did in my "crappy argument" by listing all of the experiences that were part of my driving record, which should have caused accidents -- statistically speaking. But in truth, statistical arguments do not look at the "total effect", they just look to answer the questions asked.

On 1/20/2026 at 3:14 PM, Gees said:

Yes it is a statistical argument, and statistics are made up of facts -- not truths. The reality is that facts, therefore statistics, are easy to cherry pick, manipulate, and cause an invalid perception. Just look at what comes out of Washington if you want evidence of that truth. I have a lot of issues with statistics and don't trust them.

Oh, I don't know about that. You used it to great effect the last time we argued and got three up votes for it.

On 1/20/2026 at 3:14 PM, Gees said:

In the first place, I worked as a temp in many offices in different capacities for years, and watched clerical workers gathering information (statistics) for bosses, insurance purposes, government agencies, etc. Most workers did not give two sh*ts about the information and saw it as an added, unpaid, responsibility. Would some/many of them fudge the information if it made the job easier? Absolutely.

I suspect that your assumption that the workers were "lazy" or "dishonest" is because they are clerical workers. Would you jump to the same conclusions if they were scientists? I think I was about 15 years old when I first began to doubt statistics. I was reading an article about heart disease in a magazine and how it caused so much death. My Mother and Grandmother were at the dining room table enjoying tea, when I told them about the article. I don't remember the terminology that I used, but they looked at me then at each other then burst out laughing. I didn't see what was so damned funny and said so, but every time one of them tried to explain, they looked at each other and burst out laughing again.

Finally my Mother asked, "What happens when you die?", and my Grandmother replied, "Your heart stops.", then they burst into laughter again. Once they got themselves under control, I learned that in the 45+ years between them that they had worked as nurses, they had witnessed many deaths and knew that heart disease/attack was often used as an explanation for death whether it was causal or not. Of course, that was over 60 years ago and medicine has been much improved since, so that does not happen anymore -- or does it?

Twenty years ago, my husband died of cancer. Everyone knows that he died of cancer, but his Death Certificate states that congestive heart failure contributed to his death, which is not really true. I remember when they diagnosed him with congestive heart failure about six months before he died. I was quite surprised as he was no couch potato; he was very active, had no problems with blood pressure or his cholesterol levels. It made no sense to me. It made no sense to one of the younger doctors either, as he noted that the blood work did not support the diagnosis.

My husband was sent home to die and Hospice was ordered for him. The Hospice doctor immediately took him off the cholesterol medication as my husband's bloodwork confirmed that it was not needed. His congestive heart failure was not caused by his blood. It was caused by the large tumor growing out of the main artery by his spine, which caused so much pressure on his spine that he could not feel his feet. After the surgery, when they tried to remove the tumor (but only got part of it), he was so pleased because he could feel his feet for the first time in a year. He died a few months later.

The Hospice doctor was the one who filled out the Death Certificate, so why did he put congestive heart failure on it? He knew that my husband did not suffer from congestive heart failure, as the enlarged heart was due to the tumor; not cholesterol, high blood pressure, or bad diet/living habits. I would like to suggest that he put it on the certificate because of the rules, regulations, and facts that were required with regard to explaining the death. Much like the clerical workers, who were guided by policy and procedure rather than truth.

So the people gathering statistics and the people studying them will add another lie to their knowledge. Was the doctor "lazy" or "dishonest"? He knew full well that the information would imply a false narrative, but he did it anyway. Would you call that "fudging" the truth so that he would not have to complicate the information? Should he have explained that the congestive heart failure was caused by a tumor? Is there a box for that information on the Certificate? Do the people, who are gathering statistics, want that much information? No.

Truth can be simple; truth can be complex. It can be whole and it can be partial; such as, more true than not, or mostly true, or even occasionally true, or true now, or true from a specific perspective. Truth is rarely easy, which is why we need philosophers to help us find it. If it were easy, we could give it to scientists, they could make up an experiment, test it, and we could all know the truth. But the reality is that in order to fit truth into the little box that defines fact, we will have to corrupt truth.

AI is not about intelligence or truth, it is about assimilating information and statistics. Using statistics to make judgements is like gambling, it is playing the odds. If people want to do that they can, but AI does not belong in a Court of law as it has nothing to do with justice or truth.

Gee

Thank you for taking an interest in my thread.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

A seatbelt doesn’t save lives of people who don’t get into accidents. You only mentioned driving, which means it’s irrelevant to the issue. If you had said you’d been in an accident and didn’t die despite not wearing a seatbelt, that would be an anecdote, but still irrelevant. The combination of the two make it a crappy argument.

In the US, about half of auto accident fatalities were people not wearing seatbelts, yet the vast majority wear seatbelts.

If seatbelts did nothing, the odds of dying would be the same whether or not you wore one. When looking at a large sample (not anecdotes) you’d expect fewer fatalities since there are fewer people in that group.

https://www.thezebra.com/resources/research/seat-belt-statistics/

I fully understand both your points of view about statistics, but would respectfully remind you that statistics has little or nothing to do with the topic of this thread which is about legal matters.

Before leaving the matter I would like to point out that you are both considering entirely different statistical circumstances. Gees haas a sample size of 1, but swansont is considering very large sample sizes.

The topic asks about the legal responsibility of some form of computer system (AI) driving vehicles. Apparantly nobody in some cases.

This issue of significance has recently come to light in California, resulting in a change in their laws.

BBC News

California to begin ticketing driverless cars that violat...

Under the new rules, police will be able to issue tickets directly to the car's manufacturer when an autonomous vehicle breaks a traffic law.

BBC News

Waymo cars become trapped in Atlanta suburb after glitch

The company said the vehicles, which use AI to drive, had encountered "a routing problem" that kept taking them to the same cul-de-sac.