So who should take the blame when the culprit isn’t a person, but a line of code?
Who is responsible if AI makes a mistake?
When artificial intelligence makes a mistake, determining who’s at fault becomes a genuine quest. Depending on the situation, responsibility could fall on the shoulders of developers, technology owners, or even the direct operators of the AI system. For example, if the error occurred due to flaws in algorithm design, the developers would most likely be held accountable. In cases where AI owners knew about potential risks but took no steps to address or at least minimize them, the responsibility shifts to them. Operators, meanwhile, might be liable if they violated established guidelines or misused the technology.
Consider Microsoft’s chatbot Tay, for instance. In 2016, it began spreading racist and offensive messages, forcing the company to shut down the project and issue an apology urgently. Another example is Amazon, whose recruiting algorithm exhibited bias against female applicants. This led to significant reputational damage and sparked discussions about the company’s accountability for automatically made decisions.
However, it’s not always clear who should bear legal responsibility for an AI mistake. Sometimes the causal link between an algorithm’s actions and resulting harm can be difficult to prove. For instance, if artificial intelligence makes a decision based on data obtained from third parties, who should be held accountable: the developers, operators, owners, or data providers? These nuances often lead to complicated legal scenarios that currently lack clear-cut answers.
How do we know if an error was caused by AI?
A crucial question is determining whether artificial intelligence truly is the source of an error—or if the responsibility lies with the people interacting with it. First and foremost, it’s essential to understand that AI cannot act with “malicious intent,” but its decisions can nonetheless result from flaws in algorithms, mistakes in training data, or improper use.
The main difficulty lies in identifying the exact cause of the mistake. For instance, if AI incorrectly diagnoses a patient, it’s necessary to clarify whether the error came from the algorithm or a medical professional interpreting the results. Establishing accountability requires a thorough audit of the AI system and the actions of people managing its operation.
Proving that AI specifically caused the harm requires experts who can analyze all technical aspects of the system’s operation, identifying glitches or incorrect configurations. Often, independent specialists must be brought in, making the process both costly and lengthy. Yet, this is the only way to determine who exactly bears responsibility for damage caused by AI.
How can the law solve this problem?
Current legislation is not fully adapted to handle situations involving errors made by artificial intelligence. Therefore, specialized legislation has to clearly outline the boundaries and principles of legal responsibility for AI systems’ actions. New legal standards could help reduce uncertainty and speed up the resolution of cases involving artificial intelligence.
Another critical step might involve liability insurance for AI errors. Such a practice would help companies and users better understand risks and provide some financial protection in case of damages. However, insurance alone won’t fully resolve the issue, as the challenge of pinpointing who exactly is at fault would remain.
Creating specialized courts or arbitration panels to resolve disputes related to AI and automated systems is another promising direction. These institutions could handle complex technical cases more swiftly and effectively, involving experts in both technology and law.
Our contacts
If you want to become our client or partner, feel free to contact us at support@manimama.eu.
Or use our telegram @ManimamaBot and we will respond to your inquiry.
We also invite you to visit our website: https://manimama.eu/.
Join our Telegram to receive news in a convenient way: Manimama Legal Channel.
Manimama Law Firm provides a gateway for the companies operating as the virtual asset wallet and exchange providers allowing to enter to the markets legally. We are ready to offer an appropriate support in obtaining a license with lower founding and operating costs. We offer KYC/AML launch, support in risk assessment, legal services, legal opinions, advice on general data protection provisions, contracts and all necessary legal and business tools to start business of virtual asset service provider.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter, not to be considered as a legal consultation.
