Ancient Roman conflict: Who will answer for the slave?

At the tail of a botcamp that was held on Saturday cheerfully, I can't help but write an evil legally-like libel. (not really).

It is clear that the fashion for bots is a kind of quite understandable trace of the future, in the form of voice interfaces. Or not, life will show. In the meantime, it would be nice to look at what this life can show the developer in terms of sudden problems that he may not even think about in advance.
')
When designing bots (well, yes, I already got involved in the methodology of this business, predictably, there are no problems with system methodologists in the market) everything begins with flat, predictable stories with formal lead generation on an exotic topic. It will work for some time, we will continue to look at how the market will respond with the tools of the first cut of the funnel - how to drive people to the bot. Then bots with tree-like logic will appear, and then complex stories. In this place, we must pathetically recall neural networks, machine learning, Gytika Valera Bardin, iii Ashmanova with megalinguists inside. And all this with neonkoy, of course.

And the harder this whole canoe will be, the more carefully you have to look at the clause on liability for damage that you, my gold developers, naively ignore in every first contract, because “well, what damage can a site, shop, etc., etc. .
Do you understand what I mean?

Let's take for extreme convexity - a car driver's robot. Here we have a car, he made an accident, being under the control of the autopilot. Who will blame?

Today, according to domestic legislation, everything is rather trivial - the owner of the car is to blame. Including, if his minor mistress was driving at the time of the accident. In some cases, the blame can be hung on the driver, but the owner usually compensates for the damage. I personally thus raped the joy of recovering damage from the garbage company, which was designed by Bentley, who came to me in the tail. FIG sought, by the way ...

Already the German legislation is much more fun, the Germans share different types of grounds for liability for marriage:
- for defects in the production of goods;
- for defects in the design of the goods;
- for errors in the instructions and manuals;
- for defects that are detected only with the development of technology

And depending on this, different approaches to liability. Moreover, I didn’t manage to figure it out in practice, but it is clear that there is still its own chain of regression, because there is an automaker, and there is a manufacturer of autopilot software, and it is not always inside the company.
Amerikosy is generally a space, they dig deep there, such as understanding a few cases - depending on what type of driver is driving - if a disabled person (blind, for example) is too old or young, then this is different from a reasonable driver behind the wheel.

The main question is in what proportion to divide the responsibility between the car manufacturer and the gasket between the steering wheel and the seat. For example, it describes cases when a computer can dull and give up control to a human driver, who in such cases should take control.
nplus1.ru/news/2016/02/10/real-human-being

This is where it is said that Googlepilot will be recognized Alive. Apparently they will be planted if that ...
A month ago, Tolya Alizar wrote that we have already made changes to the Administrative Code. COOL, we will see. geektimes.ru/post/273646
Let's return to our sheep.

In the simplest case, the developer does not threaten anything special. The logical chain is just an analogue of the motion algorithm by request from the functional requirements, we do not expect anything unexpected. But the deeper, the more we expect complaints and questions from the customer. Where does the bot algorithm come from? At the customer? Something I doubt, we will design it ourselves, and understanding the big map of interconnections, if we implement complex logic, it’s not banal. Will we sign and activate it? Yes, ok, but not the fact that it will save.


(Slide of Mikhail Burtsev, photo by Andrey Kolesnikov)

A curious way out of the situation would be, by the way, the mandatory implementation of a designer with a lot of customer motivation to experiment. Despite the fact that the result of such experiments is, of course, unpredictable, but at least the independent intervention of the client in the algorithm should remove the responsibility from the developer of the original algorithm. But with the possibility of deterioration. It will be very interesting if the threat of excessive liability for potential damage / loss will be a significant brake on the development of actually complex commercial systems.

The more complex the development and the more author's algorithm, the more responsible for the sudden problems the developer can use who will use this algorithm. In fact, we are releasing a monkey, being absolutely sure that she will never get a grenade anywhere. The truth of life, on the contrary, tells us that the Murphy rule works almost always.

While you are Google - you can afford to write a multi-page legal excuse, they say, if anything, sort it out yourself. But the majority of even pretty cool developers are not Google, and the legal service of customers will be diligently deployed such liberties.

And here the most valuable experience will be the experience of Theme Lebedev, who has been diligently twisting the hands of customers for many years.