26 minutes ago, OldTony said:

Human beings have accidents when driving cars - Insurance assessors can no doubt provide statistics on the risk factor. It seems likely to me that cars controlled by AI will also have accidents, but be developed to the point that statistics show them to be safer than humans. I can see a person in such a car that has an accident giving as an excuse "I gave control of the car to a system that statistics show improved safety on the road". Even more than that, when AI control is acknowleged as the safer option I can't see why the human occupant will even need to be able to drive at all. Is that a beautiful dream or a nightmare ?

There are already autonomous robotaxis and what we currently learn is that it obviously cuts down on human failings, such as cell phone use and other distracted driving, DUI etc. And therefore outperform drivers especially under good conditions. The issue is a bit murkier under bad weather, dusk/dawn situations, but this could be areas of improvement. It should be noted that this is likely not exclusively a software-side issue, though companies like Tesla treat it as such, but also a sensor-side issue. LIDAR significantly outperforms camera only, for example.

If we get tot the point that autonomous driving becomes the norm, I would assume that liability will be similar with respect to robotaxis, i.e. the manufacturer will be liable, for crashes while in autonomous mode. Though there will be questions regarding shared liability with respect to maintenance or use beyond the terms that will likely exist (e.g. driving outside of established grids).

But again, I don't think that autonomous driving, at least for the foreseeable future, is an AI-only question.

57 minutes ago, OldTony said:

Human beings have accidents when driving cars - Insurance assessors can no doubt provide statistics on the risk factor. It seems likely to me that cars controlled by AI will also have accidents, but be developed to the point that statistics show them to be safer than humans. I can see a person in such a car that has an accident giving as an excuse "I gave control of the car to a system that statistics show improved safety on the road". Even more than that, when AI control is acknowleged as the safer option I can't see why the human occupant will even need to be able to drive at all. Is that a beautiful dream or a nightmare ?

We’re in a discussion of legal liability, so who is responsible when the accident occurs. Is it the AI company, or the non-driver? If it’s the latter, then people are going to have to be convinced that it’s worth assuming the liability.

When governments use AI and the AI errs and violate someone’s rights, they aren’t really in a position to pass the buck

2 hours ago, swansont said:

It’s not nebulous that a human is involved somewhere, making a decision - turning on a machine, etc. The legal responsibility is nebulous when the law doesn’t exist that holds people accountable. That’s why we need laws and legal precedent, as some of us are discussing. Unfortunately the law is sometimes absent or written such that it shields the people who are morally responsible.

Consider why motorists are so heavily shielded from charges of recklessness simply for bringing an inherently dangerous piece of machinery into an environment shared by others.

The origin of 'jaywalking' is instructive:

The term is not a historically neutral one.^[2]

The arrival of the automobile in the opening decades of the 20th century led to increasingly deadly conflicts in the street, and the public was generally unsympathetic to motorists or to early attempts to legislate pedestrian behavior.^[3][4] In response, the US automobile industry and associated organizations undertook public campaigns to frame pedestrians, newly impugned as jay-walkers, as a problematic element in the new automotive age.^[3] The first widely successful criminalization of jaywalking was enacted in Los Angeles in 1925, using legislation drafted by the auto lobby that inspired similar ordinances in other American cities.

If a man takes his imported pet leopard for walks down the village street, and every so often it bites a lump out of a passing yokel, who is morally responsible for this? The leopard? The yokel?

Pray explain why there should be any difference regarding machinery whether AI controlled or not. Indeed this argument seems to render the AI factor irrelevant.

1 minute ago, sethoflagos said:

Consider why motorists are so heavily shielded from charges of recklessness simply for bringing an inherently dangerous piece of machinery into an environment shared by others.

The origin of 'jaywalking' is instructive:

That would be an example of the kind of shielding that I mentioned. The US, at least, heavily favors automobile use to anyone else on the road.

1 minute ago, sethoflagos said:

If a man takes his imported pet leopard for walks down the village street, and every so often it bites a lump out of a passing yokel, who is morally responsible for this? The leopard? The yokel?

Pray explain why there should be any difference regarding machinery whether AI controlled or not. Indeed this argument seems to render the AI factor irrelevant.

Indeed. I can’t think of why there should be one, but there are lots of examples of corporations lobbying their way into being shielded from accountability

5 hours ago, OldTony said:

Human beings have accidents when driving cars - Insurance assessors can no doubt provide statistics on the risk factor. It seems likely to me that cars controlled by AI will also have accidents, but be developed to the point that statistics show them to be safer than humans. I can see a person in such a car that has an accident giving as an excuse "I gave control of the car to a system that statistics show improved safety on the road". Even more than that, when AI control is acknowleged as the safer option I can't see why the human occupant will even need to be able to drive at all. Is that a beautiful dream or a nightmare ?

I don't think you can hide behind statistics.

Every accident, human or otherwise, is liable to the determination of responsibility.

It is no good saying, for instance

"I am driving a Volvo since they are safer cars", if you then cause an accident in one.

As regards manufacturer responsibility motor bike are very definitely less safe than cars.

Should we blame the idiots who drive them irresponsibly or the manufacturers?

4 hours ago, swansont said:

The US, at least, heavily favors automobile use to anyone else on the road.

Quite the reverse situation in the UK.

In 2019 the 'Highway Code' was strengthened by introducing a formal hierarchy of precedence with pedestrians at the top of the list.

Formerly horseriders were top, but they now come second, with cyclists third.

Unfortunately too many drivers think they have precedence in all situations, when there are actually very few such situations indeed.

On 6/6/2026 at 4:23 PM, TheVat said:

A fact is defined as information or a piece of information presented as true or accurate. To be accepted as a fact, there must be reason and evidence which supports it as a true statement about reality. Facts, then, are very much dependent on their truth value.

Which is why it is my position that ignoring truth is a very good way to corrupt fact. Earlier in this thread, I explained that I personally knew of two different situations (although there are more than two) where statistics (facts) were gathered without benefit of truth.

On 6/6/2026 at 4:23 PM, TheVat said:

Your dichotomy is a misrepresenting of what those terms mean. When a Court asks for the whole truth, it is asking for a meaningful and evidenced collection of facts on the matter before the Court.

No. It is asking for the 'whole truth' and 'nothing but the truth'. Law is ancient, thousands of years old, and probably older than written language, so it has had lots of experience in understanding truth, and knowing that truth can be partial, and that it differs from different perspectives, and is even different at different times. When it asks for 'nothing but the truth' it is demanding no additional misinformation.

What do you get when you rebuild the 'partial' truths, consider truth from all available perspectives, and understand its meaning through time? You get wisdom, known as advanced truth, and that is what the Court is looking for.

On 6/8/2026 at 9:14 AM, TheVat said:

But for a statement to be true, it must correspond to some state of affairs in the world, i.e. be factual.

No. To be PROVEN true, there must be facts. But you are not talking about truths; you are talking about statements.

Without evidence, truth does not become fact. It either remains true, or it becomes speculation -- at best -- or it becomes lies, dreams, hallucinations, mental instability, etc.

On 6/8/2026 at 9:14 AM, TheVat said:

(Or, if an analytic truth, be inherent in the meanings of the words used) So synthetic truths (to use Kant's distinction) ARE dependent on facts. (This, BTW, is not about me being a science guy, but a precision in how we use words in any context like this)

I am forever hearing about Kant in science forums. One would think he is the only philosopher. I suspect that the reason is that Kant was a bit of a science guy himself, so science types relate to him.

If you trace back the ideas of 'analytic truth' and 'synthetic truth' what you get is a study of language, not a study of truth. It is an argument about language and semantics. Granted, he is trying to prove truth, but his argument is useless because it is after the fact -- truth is already boxed and corrupted by semantics before he begins to study it.

You can think of it like you would processed food, which looks good, tastes good, and is satisfying. But it doesn't give you the nutrition that you expect and this shows over time. Once truth is processed into fact, then incorporated into statistics, it is so processed that there is little truth left.

On 6/8/2026 at 9:14 AM, TheVat said:

Your example isn't really working, given that it describes a situation where key facts were missing and therefore an untrue verdict resulted from a failure of due process.

How can you know what "key facts were missing". How can you prove a negative? This can't be done.

On 6/8/2026 at 9:14 AM, TheVat said:

The true statement is that you did not shoot the man,

Maybe I lied.

On 6/8/2026 at 9:14 AM, TheVat said:

and it is also a fact that you did not shoot him.

It is not a fact -- prove it.

On 6/8/2026 at 9:14 AM, TheVat said:

That a court made a grave error in discovering the key facts doesn't require us to redefine what facts are. Synthetic truths DO require facts, i.e. statements which correspond to reality.

"statements"? Language and semantics not truths.

Gee

I'm not sure about these ideas of 'Truth' as something standing separate from other parts of reality.

Although medical matters are often debated in courts, I don't think it is germane to this thread about AI.

However it would be interesting to discuss 'Truth' in the light of idiopathic diagnoses and statistics.

1 hour ago, Gees said:

No. To be PROVEN true, there must be facts. But you are not talking about truths; you are talking about statements.

Without evidence, truth does not become fact. It either remains true, or it becomes speculation -- at best -- or it becomes lies, dreams, hallucinations, mental instability, etc.

Perhaps you could give some examples of truths that are not facts, and vice-versa.