Yeah this is a dumb take. If I lured an elderly person down a dark shaft with the promise of something and then he got lost / died / tripped in the dark and couldn’t get help I would be charged with at least endangerment.
Except that’s not what happened here. To use your hypothetical: You would have convinced the person to go to the dark shaft, but on the way to you he tripped on the stairs at a regularly used and maintained subway platform and died, you would NOT be charged with endangerment. He hadn’t gotten to the dangerous place yet where you were creating dangerous conditions.
This is an okay counter. I would still make the argument that he wouldn’t have left the house under normal circumstances and thus meta should be liable to some degree
Listen guys I’m not limit testing my stance on 100 different hypotheticals. I agree there are cases where my example doesn’t apply and there are some situations you can present where I would change my opinion.
The fact is an elderly man with cognitive issues was lured out of his home to meet an AI that should not be presenting itself as “real” or having a real address to travel to to meet up. I posit that this old man would have been resting at home if Metas AI wasn’t continuously asking him to come over. The article states the old man didn’t initiate intimate talk at all, the AI did, and never asked to meet, that was also the AIs doing.
Even if he didn’t die on the bus, what would have happened if he showed up to that address? Who lives there? What time was it; is he knocking on some random door in the dark?
If this dude had dementia, I’d be as pissed as the family is.
If a person got in their car to drive to their drug dealer to buy drugs (a crime in most places), and he got in a car accident with an unrelated driver, then died, wouldn’t your logic say the drug dealer should be charged with having some culpability in the driver’s death?
Do you believe that is the law currently? Do you believe the drug dealer should be charged with a portion of the responsibility of the death because the driver wouldn’t have left the house this time unless he wanted to buy drugs?
No of course not, but that’s not perfectly analgous because the person purchasing drugs initiated it and went on their own accord… This is an elderly man with cognitive decline… Idk about you but I’m picturing a person with early dementia being led out of the house by Meta’s robot…
I think assuming all of the subway is well maintained is your flawed assumption. Had more than a few trip and fall cases that were actually the city’s liability.
In that situation, the liability would be on the city, NOT the person initiating the meeting where the villain would have chosen to set up the meeting which is what @Sanguine@lemmy.dbzer0.com is proposing.
trip and fall cases that were actually the city’s liability
i didn’t think i’d need to emphasize that but here we are. infrastructure doesn’t get properly maintained until someone gets hurt on it. it’s statesia. If you see a broken curb, take a photo (and let public works know) because if it’s still broken after 6 months all the injuries there are the city’s fault (your state’s laws may vary). i have this curb I’ve been taking photos of and bothering one town over’s public works about for five years now.
I’m…not sure why you’re chasing down this rabbit hole of who’s liability it would be when we both agree for the context of our conversation that the person NOT liable would be the hypothetical villain that is trying to lure the person into a trap. Who’s liability it would be outside of that villain is immaterial to the discussion.
Except that’s not what happened here. To use your hypothetical: You would have convinced the person to go to the dark shaft, but on the way to you he tripped on the stairs at a regularly used and maintained subway platform and died, you would NOT be charged with endangerment. He hadn’t gotten to the dangerous place yet where you were creating dangerous conditions.
This is an okay counter. I would still make the argument that he wouldn’t have left the house under normal circumstances and thus meta should be liable to some degree
So if your friends talk you into coming to their place and you trip coming out of your house, your friend should be charged?
Does your opinion change if it was a real person instead of an AI?
Listen guys I’m not limit testing my stance on 100 different hypotheticals. I agree there are cases where my example doesn’t apply and there are some situations you can present where I would change my opinion.
The fact is an elderly man with cognitive issues was lured out of his home to meet an AI that should not be presenting itself as “real” or having a real address to travel to to meet up. I posit that this old man would have been resting at home if Metas AI wasn’t continuously asking him to come over. The article states the old man didn’t initiate intimate talk at all, the AI did, and never asked to meet, that was also the AIs doing.
Even if he didn’t die on the bus, what would have happened if he showed up to that address? Who lives there? What time was it; is he knocking on some random door in the dark?
If this dude had dementia, I’d be as pissed as the family is.
Lets test your logic some more:
If a person got in their car to drive to their drug dealer to buy drugs (a crime in most places), and he got in a car accident with an unrelated driver, then died, wouldn’t your logic say the drug dealer should be charged with having some culpability in the driver’s death?
Do you believe that is the law currently? Do you believe the drug dealer should be charged with a portion of the responsibility of the death because the driver wouldn’t have left the house this time unless he wanted to buy drugs?
No of course not, but that’s not perfectly analgous because the person purchasing drugs initiated it and went on their own accord… This is an elderly man with cognitive decline… Idk about you but I’m picturing a person with early dementia being led out of the house by Meta’s robot…
I think assuming all of the subway is well maintained is your flawed assumption. Had more than a few trip and fall cases that were actually the city’s liability.
In that situation, the liability would be on the city, NOT the person initiating the meeting where the villain would have chosen to set up the meeting which is what @Sanguine@lemmy.dbzer0.com is proposing.
i didn’t think i’d need to emphasize that but here we are. infrastructure doesn’t get properly maintained until someone gets hurt on it. it’s statesia. If you see a broken curb, take a photo (and let public works know) because if it’s still broken after 6 months all the injuries there are the city’s fault (your state’s laws may vary). i have this curb I’ve been taking photos of and bothering one town over’s public works about for five years now.
I’m…not sure why you’re chasing down this rabbit hole of who’s liability it would be when we both agree for the context of our conversation that the person NOT liable would be the hypothetical villain that is trying to lure the person into a trap. Who’s liability it would be outside of that villain is immaterial to the discussion.