Comment by brainwad
2 days ago
The whole point of OpenClaw bots is that they don't have (much) human oversight, right? It certainly seems like the human wasn't even aware of the bot's blog post until after the bot had written and posted it. He then told it to be more professional, and I assume that's why the bot followed up with an apology.
So what? You're still responsible for the output, even if you yourself think you can hide behind "well, it was the computer, no way for me to control that"
I don't think that's true, actually. You aren't responsible for things that can't be reasonably foreseen, usually. There are a few strict liability offences in criminal law, but libel isn't one of them. We don't make everything strict liability because it would stifle people's lives.
I don't think a reasonable person would have expected this outcome, so the owner of the bot is off the hook; though obviously _now_ it's more more forseeable and if he keeps running it despite this experience, then if it happens again he will not have the same defence.
Morally responsible.
"Well, it isn't a crime to stand up a robot that hurts people" is not exactly my idea of a compelling defense.
2 replies →