progress said prevert too good
to be true this is probably the
kind of thought that could cross
the mind some at the wedding of the first
responsible accident of google because the
google because you know it’s this
autonomous car is a robot on
four wheels whose builders we
recalls with some insistence
that unlike a motorist
human a robot it never gets in
anger here do not see that leaves
never the road of the eyes to explain
children who do not play cuckoo
little with daddy it’s very dangerous and
that it does not send text messages to their
close to tell them I can not you
reply
I am driving and yet
other accidents occurred, one of which
mortal caused by another’s car
constructor whose sensors had
failed to identify a white truck on
a road in sun my name is cédric
collomb I am a lawyer and I
I’m interested since these same accidents
to the responsibility because of the robots
the question of who will have to
respond to damage caused by
smart things
so I say tomorrow because the
question is far from being settled
even in the simplest cases
I will take an example of accidents
who had been identified by
lugano he had been without gravity
so precise that already made
autonomous cars this is mostly about
semi autonomous cars that we did not
not been until removing the steering wheel and
the pedals even though prototypes of
this kind already exist
here the driver arrive at a
intersection and fearing that the car
does not slow down enough
that she does not brake at all he decides
to depress the brake pedal
this being the combined action of the
driver to that of the vehicle that
of course had negotiated
the intersection and well led the
car to stop abruptly and s
to engulf it at the back by
the driver who followed her then
in this case the reaction of the
constructor she is all found
it’s the driver’s fault
he is at fault not to have believed capable
a robot to look after his own
security except in law it’s not
as simple as that there is a
recent rule that allows
the introduction of autonomous machines on
our roads but with the condition of guil
text that the driver is the
permanent control and this text of which I
you speak it’s a treatise
international ambition
to harmonize regulations
between no less than 84 countries
then you seize the pitfall of
raises the reason the reaction of the
builder
how can we hold the
driver for faulty while
legally he is supposed to have the
permanent control of the car this
example it prefigures in my opinion the
reality of tomorrow the reality of
tomorrow is that the more autonomous we will be
the more things it will be difficult to
find a manager
behind the damage she would come
because and it’s good for cars
autonomous it’s also why not
for humanoid robots you know
those who wait patiently to leave
the workshops remain today
largely confined but which are
already deserving of their stripes
companion robots of auxiliary dresses
of sex robot life there are some
already
the problem is that for the moment neither
French law and European law do not
make the difference between that and that or
still between that and that there is nothing
not a legal criterion that allows
to distinguish the robot from the all-comers
machines this even as we
is just starting to wake up
difficulties that arise
when pretending tea machines
not only of faculty to
to move by itself like others
robot vacuums or the robot mower
urban very naughty this but especially
of cognition
that is , faculties to learn
to analyze
to make decisions you know
this is the typical example that feeds
fantasies of those who are worried about
what we delegate tomorrow all power
of decision to cars in case
unavoidable accident is what
the algorithm that controls the decisions
the vehicle will coldly calculate the
chances that the child will survive
rather than his parents sitting in places
before
eventually the autonomous car could
to become the moral agent of
motorists in conditions that
technology but also the right
will have to strive to define then I
am not telling you this is
the right that advances technology
on the other hand what is certain is that
without the right we will not succeed without
right technology will not find any
legitimacy
atheists says legitimacy she passes
necessarily by the invention of
new solutions to apprehend
risks related to the development of
cognitive robotics for now
none of the current rules seem
adapted there is one well known he
wants the manufacturer to be responsible
damage caused by defects
products that it sells
so here is a rule as natural
that it is simple to justify and
yet again it’s autonomy
cognitive which is likely to make
to appear the limits
take the example of auxiliary robots
of life we exist several certain
are gifted to carry their
masters from one room to another of his
apartment
others to perform tasks
housewives for now simple enough
but it’s not big deal
these robots they will learn heaps of
things of which the coming years and at
thanks for their new version then
now suppose that one of these
robots is causing damage to his
user
the whole problem related to the rule
according to which the manufacturer is
responsible for damage caused by
defects of the products that it puts in
traffic
it is precisely that it is not
responsible only so far as this
defect existed at the time of this
in circulation
gold to consider evolutionary things
who adapts who changes well we will have to
conclude quickly that the damage that
today were caused was
by something different from those that
had been previously set
circulation a few weeks or
a few months earlier since the robot
it has evolved in the meantime and here is the
door wide open to builders
who wish to escape their
responsibilities
to tell the truth, the lawyers have not finished
Pull out hair
what will happen for example in case
of resale of the robot you know the same
way that some of us
the first one was able to test a day against
the way the former owner
of a car aged manhandled the case
speed we may come
tomorrow to pester against the way
the former owner only robots in
was making use of is at the bottom of the
bad education that gave him
exactly as we would be blamed for
poorly educate our children
In short, we will never really be on what
we fall then be careful
which might one day ring your
door to offer his services
anyway allow a robot
to adapt to its use and that’s
already to be only this one exercises
an influence on his behavior
so why not turn instead
to this user by calling the
traditional foundation of the
liability is the criterion
of custody this criterion of custody
it is as old as the civil code
1804 civil code which still states that
the master is responsible for his animal
because he has to control and has to
monitor must keep it and at the
favor of the industrial revolution in
the end of the 19th century this criterion of
keep his energies at all kinds of
machinery
today what is it good
it’s all power just to
use of control and direction
that a person holds on a thing
so yes we could be tempted to
reason by analogy is to compare
our robot to an animal except that this
solution
it contradicts the essence lusage
same robot that is precisely
to fend for himself in
satisfactory
at best the interests are
users the parallel can be
done with recreational drones there are
a recent one that dates from 2016 that makes
now obligation to the owners
such drones to undergo training
compulsory in particular for
familiarize yourself with the rules
applicable for overflight of
two yellow populated but the reason
to be of this mandatory training
it’s precisely that it’s not about
of a robot but two things that are
helmed man-driven in reverse
if we take again the example of our robots
auxiliary of life
the argument that will govern the
marketing and the success of
such machines is due to the fact that
the user will only have to worry
orders that he can give them and
not at all the way they are
take to execute them and
finally the game we call the right
of consumption that of the
consumption and its purpose is
protect consumers especially in
informing them and well the right of the
consumption may have to be
with a disturbing paradox since
the more autonomous we will be the more things
quite complex but less we will need
to understand them unlike
our drone pilot we’re looking to
empowering more then you
understand how much the
criterion of guard is here unsuitable
less is more so the man who keeps
the machine but the machine that keep
of man by satisfying
needs that is no longer capable of
satisfy himself even by doing
evidence on him of authority when he
for example to refuse him a
drug that he has already taken in the
day then let’s summarize
on the one hand the responsibility of
constructor that looks natural but
that we will have more and more trouble to
justify as and when
things get round and that they
will reveal defects that he
did not exist at the time of their
traffic
and then on the other hand the responsibility of
the used which is equally criticizable
to the extent that a priori it is not
to him to understand they were controlling
a thing that is supposed to be doing
all alone then he would stay well one
third way which some have been able
think the responsibility of the robot
obviously the responsibility of the robot
which supposes concedes to the myth of the robot
people, that is to say, one decked out
of a legal personality like you
and me or holds as a business a
company is entered in the register of the
trade and companies it is
allocates capital and well that’s
exactly on this on this way there that
committed itself there are already several
years the state of nevada to the states
united by systematically listing
his autonomous cars on a file
dedicated
and then assigning them capital that
could serve as insurance in case of
accident in my opinion we do not need
to embarrass yourself with such a solution
when it will be enough to postpone the weight
insurance on the shoulders of the
constructor or on that of the used
it will cost almost nothing
since there will be practically
accidents but especially this solution
she seems terribly dangerous to me
because basically what is it
legal personality is the aptitude
to be rights holders the attitude
to hold prerogatives
legal
then do we will come tomorrow
consider that our robot deserves
to be protected in its integrity
physical in his private life in the
works of art that he could create
personally I do not hope and in
anyway this future seems to me very
unlikely
imagine that in French law we put
more than two centuries to admit that
animals were not things
but gentle living beings and
sensitivity without doing so
people how long
will it be necessary before we admit that
machines are non-living beings
deserves such a personality
you understand it I’m not at all
favorable to recognizing
rights to the robot however I am good
more to the emergence and
development of a robot right
derval place placed under the sign of
caution or distrust
vis-à-vis these things whose
extraordinary abilities
Portas played man his
authority this robots right I
would define as the set of rules
to organize
the introduction of autonomous machines
in social life I talked to you
today the right of the
liability I could have you
talk about other subjects like law
disabilities
will it be necessary that tomorrow the judge of
guardianship decides on the opportunity
to send auxiliary rollers
living at the bedside of a dependent person
especially if she has troubles
it is a vocation
so we see it must robots there
does not exist yet but it is already the
reality of today
in any case tomorrow’s but for
Nothing
do not be afraid if one day you
decide to acquire a sexual robot and
let’s go winter evenings you there
go a little hard
words of lawyers touch you
risk is to blow up the
guarantee
thank you
[Applause]
”
Be First to Comment