Tue 6 Mar 2007
From the legal blog at Wired News: AI Cited for Unlicensed Practice of Law
Frankfort Digital Services set up a web-based AI expert system to automatically fill out bankruptcy forms, which included citing relevant case law. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court took a dim view. Digging a bit deeper, apparently the way the software filled out the forms caused Frankfort to be classified as a “bankruptcy preparer” under 11 U.S.C. 110, and as such the company was required to list itself as a preparer and have someone sign the forms. (So, not quite as fascinating as the headline suggests.)
But this brings up the issue of how to apportion responsibility (and liability) when an expert system is making important decisions with little human involvement. If something goes wrong, should the creators be blamed? Or the handlers providing day-to-day oversight? Or, more fancifully, is there a way to punish the AI itself?
The debate about this has been warming up for decades now in medicine, automated trading on Wall Street, tax preparation, etc. I expect it will get more interesting as AI technology continues to improve. An interesting up-to-the-moment SF take is Charles Stross’s Accelerando.
3 Responses to “It’s All My Computer’s Fault”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
March 8th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
I found this article compelling, and the comments to it even more so. You wouldn’t think bankruptcy software would be such an emotionally fraught issue, but between the people who are outraged at the thought that any part of their jobs could be replaced by a computer, and the people who are sure they are getting fleeced when asked to pay for services they suspect a machine could do, it’s quite a maelstrom out there.
The question of where to place liability when AI commits “malpractice” is a tough one, and one that I suspect we’ll grope and stumble our way through just as we have for other technologies as they’ve arisen. Technologies as simple as the photocopier caused some serious legal head-scratching when they first appeared, not to mention more recent beauties like Napster.
Another hard issue at work here is that of regulated professions generally. It’s clear from the comments to the article that a lot of people feel that regulated professions like law and medicine are regulated in order to protect the pockets of the practitioners (i.e. that lawyers and judges object to AI Bankrupcy filing because it loses them a paying customer). Although jaded views generally appeal to me, I can’t sign on to this one. Laws about the unauthorized practice of law, medicine, etc. are designed to protect the public, and I think by and large, they do. A computer can easily prepare a tax form, bankruptcy, divorce, real estate closing, even a lawsuit. What it can’t do is tailor the legal solution to the particular details and niceties of your situation, your lifestyle, your personality. I’m reminded of my awesome hairdresser, Camilla. A robot could make my hair shorter, but Camilla knows what I do for a living, what looks good on me, my wish to grow my hair out for my upcoming wedding, and my loathing of spending more than 5 minutes on my hair in the morning. [I know many of my Esteemed Colleagues would not appreciate being compared to hairdressers, but they must understand that Camilla is really, really good.]
Here’s the rub: there’s more at stake in regulated, fiduciary professions like the law than just a month or two of bad hair days. That’s how they came to be regulated professions. For most professional services, a waiver would solve the malpractice problem. You sign a waiver saying “I understand that I use this product entirely at my own risk, and if this product &*%*@s it up, it’s not the fault of the manufacturers, distributors, handlers, or anyone but my own unforutnate self.” Should this be allowed for professions involving fiduciary duties? After all, just because you believe you have a simple, straighforward bankruptcy doesn’t mean you have one. However, I can also see the argument that this is a condescending attitude, and people should be allowed to make their own decisions about whether to use AI services for legal matters. I’m curious to hear your perspectives on this.
March 8th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
There is an ongoing discussion of paternalism in government at the Overcoming Bias blog.
Overcoming Bias is a group blog where most of the contributors have an economics background. I enjoy watching them try to reconcile Friedmanesque libertarian instincts with the blog’s theme of irrational bias in human nature. It’s so refreshing that they manage to discuss these issues without being totally compromised by a political agenda.
March 8th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
I think that when an agent acts on your behalf, you have liability for that agents actions. It does not matter to me if the Agent is human. I think that general waivers of liability are bogus for products sold as a service, as in this case. I don’t think we need treat the AI any differently from a human working for a corporate entity.
Regarding paternalism in government, I was listening to a Radio story about the powerful motorcycle anti-helmet lobby (ABATE — A Brotherhood Against Totalitarian Enactments). The net of it is that head injuries are really expensive, and treatment ends up being paid for by the state.
I think that the State (”us”) has an obligation to each of us to protect us from liability for others negligent actions. Seatbelts, helmet laws, gun locks, food safety laws, product safety laws all fall into that category. Poor decisions in these areas result in widespread damage, not restricted to the individual. The same holds for Law and Medicine.