Artificial Intelligence and Product Liability Partnership

 

Riya

[email protected]

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND PRODUCT LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP

Artificial intelligence (AI), despite the fact that now it is no longer absolutely new, is one of the warm subjects withinside the era internationally permitted with disrupting the financial system and favourably reworking society. In contemporary times, artificial intelligence is not only restricted to advancing technology be that as it may, with its capacities of performing exercises and gaining as a matter of fact has made it perhaps the most ground-breaking field. Today, artificial intelligence finds its uses among things, rights from consumer appliances, voice assistants, health care, autonomous vehicles, etc. In fact, we are becoming more and more dependent on systems operating with artificial intelligence for the maintenance and functioning of a physical and digital infrastructure. But what is the most important thing to keep in mind is that the law should also advance with the advancement of technology. The law should be updated so that it could be made accountable for these technological advancements. Artificial intelligence, whose abilities to learn and operate autonomously from humans is actually posing lots of challenges to the established areas of law.  You see, today, there may be no felony authority both nationally or across the world that prescribes that AI be a topic of regulation. This approach that any moves or harms swaying up in light of the accompanying execution and activity of AI will currently never again keep it responsible for such harm set off; physical etc. The conundrum of who will be accountable in case of such harm and whether or not felony personhood needs to be granted to AI for legal responsibility evaluation are most of the subjects that will be blanketed on this article.

What is Artificial intelligence - MEANING? 

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines intelligence as "the ability to learn or understand things or to deal with new or difficult situations." Generally, the objective of artificial intelligence is to create computers, software, and machines that are capable of intelligence and in some cases, Unpredicted and innovative ways of behaving. The Organisation of Economic co-operation and development (OECD) in its principles has defined an artificial intelligence system. That's what the definition expresses "computerized reasoning is a machine-based framework that can, for a given arrangement of human-characterized targets, make expectations, proposals or choices impacting genuine or virtual conditions." Man-made consciousness is the methodology of developing programming systems and designs that might assume cleverly like a human idea. AI structures are neural structures that include complicated algorithms and facts units which are software programs generated in place of designed with the aid of using humans. Therefore, the ‘black container paradox’ or ‘explainability issue’ arises while handling artificially wise structures and prison liability. 

A quick description about AI and clever robots 

Which image comes to your mind when you think of 'robots'? Is it a metallic square box with beady eyes, or a metallic chunk in a semi-human form, or a realistic human-like figure as in the Terminator? The problem is that our image of a 'robot' is much influenced by the fiction that we have read. Movies like Ex Machina, WarGames, Alien and Alien Covenant, Forbidden Planet, RoboCop and AI have impacted our reasoning of AI and Robots as legitimate characters generally and incites an idea, a relaxed one yet, about the distinctions between people, creatures and non-people (preferences of country state, partnerships, lifeless things and Artificial Intelligence). Legislators are worried that the fictional image akin to that of a super villain or destroyers might be an influence when deciding upon the legal personhood of AI'. 

Legal personhood is man-made, a creature of administrative convenience and social convention that specialists and non-specialists alike often take for granted.  Legal Personhood gives out capacities to non-humans, it involves a bundle of rights, duties, powers and disabilities.  However, jurists have often opined that it lacks a statutory definition but is rather found on the popular definitions, historical, political, philosophical and theological considerations. 

It can be thus concluded that the status of personhood does not solely rest on the presence or absence of the human genome. All in all, when we take a gander at humanoids, or independent smart gadgets, or freely work capable machines with profound learning capacities, might they at any point be named people? Might it at any point be contended that now that they can repeat human feelings and emotions, have an obviously free reasoning limit that they are presently human-like? Or on the other hand can be given the situation with a human?

How can such an abstract thing, because after all, robots are nothing but machines with an algorithm coded in them, be given a legal character and personality. Can an artificial intelligence be classified as a legal person? A few years ago, this question was only theoretical. No existing computer program possessed the sort of capacities that would justify serious judicial inquiry into the question of legal personhood. Yet, presently, with the appearance of cutting-edge General AIs, it is the previous time that we managed AIs. The inquiry is regardless of some interest. Mental science starts with the presumption that the idea of human knowledge is computational, and thus, that the human psyche can, on a basic level, be displayed as a program that suddenly spikes in demand for a PC. Computerized reasoning exploration endeavours to foster such models.

In a case of Sutton's Hospital, a UK Court said that "although personhood for a corporation with an identity for example identity of its shareholders is a fiction, 'it is a reality for legal purposes." It can be hence said that what is artificial isn't necessarily imaginary; an artificial lake is not an imaginary lake. 

Arguing along the same lines, artificial intelligence is very much real. All in all, on the off chance that a robot can talk like people, walk like people, carry on like people, and even figure like people, could it at any point be known as a person?

Robots that can talk like humans have been in the market for quite some time now. Earlier, there existed chatbots that could chat with unsuspecting humans when they came to their website, relieving humans. Google recently unveiled its Duplex  AI system that can have uninterrupted real time conversation over call with humans in a human voice and tone. Chatbots have been used not only by websites but also by healthcare companies.

Robots with walking 'legs' have been under development now for many years. Nations like Japan have accomplished spearheading in mechanical technology and created robots that are versatile, either on wheels or on legs. Named as 'modern robots', these are the following enormous thing in mechanical technology. Increased balancing and ever improving algorithms has now created robots that can also walk on rugged terrains, but can a robot which can walk like a human be termed as a person?

Computers with embedded deep learning systems are capable of thinking over objective matters. However, their thinking capabilities are limited to the data set they train on, but so is true for any human. If any human is just taught some part of academia, then they will only know that part, and not all. Anyway, will the contention that robots have restricted thinking ability hold with regards to giving them legitimate personhood status?

The European Union in paragraph 24 of its Draft Policy on Robotics which started a motion for a resolution on regulation said that "in view of robots' new abilities, robots' civil liability is a crucial issue which needs to be addressed at EU level". Nonetheless, it doesn't seem proper to settle the issue by laying out the robot as an at-risk lawful individual. Beside this, the movement has a few spaces to be filled in regards to obligation for harms prompted by an independent robot, to align it with civil liability law.

AI and product liability – two basic questions

1. Who can be held responsible under product liability law? 

The first question that arises if an AI system causes injury or property damage is who can be held responsible for that damage. AI systems are software and therefore have no legal capacity. In other words, the AI system is not capable of owning assets or having rights, debts or obligations.

Therefore, if an AI system causes damage, it cannot be punished or held accountable. However, according to PLD ", the manufacturer must take responsibility for the damage caused by a defect of its products". The directive is also considered to include product-related software, even if the term "product" refers to "interior".

In principle, the question is whether a "manufacturer" of an AI product may require a thorough analysis of basic agreements and laws. However, when PLD is applied, the applicant does not need to worry about this issue. The injured party is not even related to the "manufacturer" but can claim from the person presenting the product is their own by "his name, his mark or solid feature on the other hand on the product ", the person entered the product" in the community ", and if the manufacturer appears no one" put outstanding products ". When an individual buys AI products from an EU outside country, the responsibility issues can become much more difficult. 

2. What is covered by product liability? 

Product liability includes personal injury and physical damage for personal use, but does not include damage to the product itself. This means that two limitations of liability are involved. First, the "personal use" criterion leads to the exclusion of utility vehicles from the product liability system. Second, damage to the product itself is not compensated. For example, if someone owns an automatic vehicle, they will not receive compensation.

Furthermore, product liability assumes that the product has a safety defect, which means that the product is not as safe as it could be, among other things, depending on the product. into the context of the product information provided by the manufacturer. 

However, the PLD does provide for the possibility of states to be exempt from liability when "the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time of placing the product in circulation is not sufficient to enable detection of existence of defects".

Traditional product liability lays out responsibilities in three areas:

1. Contracts;

2. Under the Sales and Consumer Protection Act; and

3. In Torts.

Designers, manufacturers, and retailers of AI-based products must navigate the current product liability system, which will have to keep pace with the future of AI and machine learning. 

Conclusion 

Regardless of how well a product is designed, manufactured or distributed, the threat of litigation is always present. Designers and manufacturers of AI technologies will find themselves faced with allegations that a product was defectively designed or manufactured, that warnings with regard to usage or explanations of product behaviour were inadequate, or sometimes a combination of these. This is why it is imperative that designers and manufacturers understand how to proactively eliminate risks, where possible, and how best to defend their products when faced with lawsuits, whether they are individual claims or class actions.

References:

Woodrow barfield, "research handbook on the law of artificial intelligence", p.1

Artificial Intelligence and the shift in liability, available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/artificial-intelligence-shift-liability/ (last visited on: 04-06-2022)

European Civil Law Rules for Robots, (accessible at https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/571379/IPOL STU(2016)5 71379_EN.pdf)

Roger Cotterrell, The Sociology of Law (Butterworths, 2nd ed, 1992) 124.

Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld, Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning (Ashgate, 2001).

John Dewey, The Historic Background of Corporate Legal Personality' (1926) 35(6) Yale Law Journal 655, 655.

Arthur Machen, ‘corporate personality’ (1911) 24(4) Harvard Law Review 253, 257 quoted in John Dewey

https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/05/duplex-ai-system-for-natural-conversation.html, last accessed June 4,2022.

Artificial Intelligence and Product Liability: Catching up with the Future, available at:  https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx (last visited on: 10-04-2022)