By Jessie Guy-Ryan
Originally posted March 12, 2016
Here is an excerpt:
So, to summarize the above: robots can’t give performances, aren’t animate objects, but can take possession of items as extensions of their operators. The entire paper is full of interesting, sometimes contradictory, cases, and well worth reading. But the varying precedents established combined with judicial metaphors advancing the idea that robots inherently lack autonomy, may create difficulties as robots—and, inevitably, legal cases involving robots—become more and more common and these narrow decisions and definitions become less and less accurate.
“The mismatch between what a robot is and how courts are likely to think of robots will only grow in salience and import over the coming decade,” Calo writes. He emphasizes the importance of exploring existing case law and establishing new institutions and agencies to provide knowledge and information to help guide courts.
The article is here.