AI accident: who is responsible?

Festival2024_AI_ThinkingQuestion

Imagine…

It is 20 years in the future. You work for a company called Techsolves. AI is used for a lot of tasks and most of the time, things happen without a problem. However, one day something goes wrong: a robot malfunctions and a person gets hurt.

Look at the opinions about who is responsible:

A

"The company that developed the AI is responsible. It shouldn’t be in workplaces if it’s not completely safe!"

B

"The owner of Techsolves is responsible. They should keep all workers safe at all times."

C

"The worker who got hurt is responsible for not being careful. It’s no different to if they hurt themselves some other way."


Comments (356)

You must be logged in with Student Hub access to post a comment. Sign up now!

  • I agree the least with option C.


    As saying its the worker's fault oversimplifies things. Imagine using a new tool; sometimes, it might not work perfectly. It's similar with advanced robots. Blaming the worker ignores the possibility of problems in the robot or the system. We all work together with technology, and safety is a team effort. Instead of blaming, it's better to focus on fixing any issues, making sure both people and machines stay safe. This way, we learn and make things better for everyone.

    1. I agree because it is not the worker's fault that the equipment is unsafe. This could be a better learning experience if we focus one what was done wrong instead who did something wrong.

    2. I agree because... The mistake is not from the workers it might be the things that was used in programming the AI robots the were not good or was not safe enough to be used, but I will say that if we are focused on what we are doing it will be more better than focusing on the mistake you have made.

      1. Actually I agree with your point, in my own opinion because I tend to agree more because the fault can be from the producers why, because of the lack of material and equipment to acquire a sufficient and long lasting hardware properties so as to enable the AI bots to last long for accurate usage and capabilities to do work to reduce stress for the humans.

        So in conclusion, AI accidents is actually caused by the producers because of the lack of hardware properties which is caused by the lack of economic and probably financial standards like in the country Nigeria where the economy standard is not well being measured because of some of the leaders. Thanks.

        1. I agree with you because when producers make ai they are low sometimes low in quality because of the following reasons.
          1. produces do not have enough time to test run products they produced to ensure it efficiency and sometime what they produce tend to be faulty.
          2. they get more expensive in markets because the standard of living especially in Nigeria increases on a daily basis . also they materials used to create them does not reduce either. since standard of living is increasing they demand for these product are reducing at a very high pace because people are more interested in what they are going to eat than a machine that gives a helping hand. therefore putting the producer at the losing end because his products are not selling.
          3. as the materials to buy these things are increasing in prize producers settle for the cheaper ones which the quality is not as high as the one they were using so the quality reduces automatically. thereby endangering the lives of individuals.
          thank you

    3. I agree, blaming people is wasting their time and taking them away from what's really important. They should be trying to make the robot better and finding ways to make the robot not malfunction again. They should work together instead of blaming each other.

    4. I totally agree with you because not always the injured worker is the responsible of been like that because, as you said before, if the worker tried to use a new tool, it's obvious that you don't know how to use it and probably you have difficulties to understand its use.

  • This is a difficult question because it might just be carelessness from the worker or it might be something wrong with the AI but I think option (a) might be most important because if the AI / robot it is not completely safe it should not be in the workplaces.
    But also it is partly (b) because the factory owner should always keep its workers safe because that is their job (to keep the workers safe) and the workers expect to be kept safe while they are doing their job. Also, the AI might not be programmed properly so that if it was programmed properly, the problem might not have ever happened. The factory owner should've checked that the AI was safe before letting the people in the factory use it in their work.

    1. Good evaluation of the options!

    2. I agree because in such a situation, a good boss should make sure that the AI system is perfectly safe in order to ensure safety of workers because I think that in this scenario there are few human workers left and a boss ought to do all in his power to keep those human workers. I think that it is mostly B if the Ai is new which means that it has not been testing But I think that it is A if it has been used for a long time it is option A This situation sounds very advanced were the AI are self learning because there are already ongoing attempts to create self learning AI and if successful, this situation would be a lot worse because other AIs might think they are able to hurt humans and hide it as a malfunction. This could lead to a drastic decrease in man power. Such self learning AI are known as self adaptive AI.

      1. I partially disagree that a boss should ensure AI is perfectly safe because it may be impossible to do so due to perhaps limitless ways to integrate it in the workforce, and AI can make unexpected mistakes (such as when Air Canada was defeated in court after one of their chatbots lied about some of their policies). Additionally, error is needed for development and can lead to new discoveries that can improve safety. However, the boss should still appropriately train their employees to safely deal with unprecedented circumstances.

    3. I agree because...I this situation, a good manger will do everything to make sure the AI systems are working well and if the AI bots are working well the workers will be safe and if the are not safe the can make a lot of mistakes in the process of keeping it safe but as for point B if the tech solvers are responsible then the other workers should be safe. But I will suggest that if other AI robots are been coded to make other AI robots I will be more better because we are in the advanced century so the work most not be only done by humans .

    4. I agree because... if the robot has not been tested or checked it should not be in the workplaces, rather it can be in a room which stores unused devices or a specific room for the robot.
      I think since it's a workplace, the owner of the factory could have arranged a place in the building for medical people, in case of a medical situation, in a similar way to the worker who got injured by the robot.

  • This a very tough choice because on one hand I think that the company who developed the AI is responsible for the accident as they should always ensure that their product is completely safe before they sell it to other companies(a).

    On the other hand, I think that the owner of Techsolves is responsible because their job is to keep their workers safe at all times even if nothing has ever gone wrong with the technology before.They should remember that there is always a first time at everything. The owner should never have used this particular product in his business if there was any risk at all of an accident or anyone getting hurt(b).

    After considering all the pros and cons, I think that b is the option that I agree with most.

    One person that I don't think is responsible at all is the worker who got hurt. The accident isn't their fault at all because they couldn't have been more careful when it comes to dangerous matters like robots and electronics and they would never have wanted to get hurt so it is in no way their fault.

    1. I like the way you outlined your thought process!

    2. I'm not sure about this because I disagree because if someone else had manufactured the AI robot, there could have been the chance that the robot wouldn't have made the accident, so I agree with option A the most. But then again, what you said about option B being the best option, and how the owner should have just used common sense and keep the people safe is something I also agree with

  • As the company is labeled Techsolves, it should solve problems and not make. The malfunction means that it wasn't properly built from the company. The owner wasn't there , just gave the approval according to what the company workers suggested. But we need to make sure that when we are using theses machines, people working there should be safe and be trained to stop using machines that malfunction.

    1. Hi, friendly song
      I solemnly agree with you in a high scale of preseptive, why because yes for example of a company which you used in your comment, the company called Techsolves, which as you said is a company that deals with the aspects of fixing and creating of AI powdered bots.

      So when it comes to who is the cause of an accident that happens at work, we all should know that it comes from the producer or even possiblely can be hacked where by it will be done because of evil or selfish needs to cause harm or danger to the company and even the individuals in the building. So looking at it, they should (the programmers) probably increase the security levels of the program, of the AI bots so as to make sure that the bots are free from being hacked to prevent danger from happening, and to keep the individuals safe for any cyber danger to protect them from different forms of attacks in the company where the AI bots work as well as the individuals.
      Thanks.

  • I think option A is the best option because the company that are developing the AI should know about it. They should know about its merits and demerits also. If they are developing AI then they should know how to control it and they should hire professionals who should know how to control it when they malfunction. They should only keep AI where they can function easily and they can do better than humans. For example: they should not put AI in school because if it malfunctions then it will harm the children of school. I agree with option C also. The workers need to worry about themselves it's their fault if they are careless. If they were not careless then the AI would not harm them.

  • In my opinion i would like to do agree with A and C. The A who said that the company that developed AI is responsible. Yes they are responsible because they have developed AI and they should be responsible for this also. I agree with that AI can help in our work instead of a one man but AI can't be replace in a man place. C had said that the worker who had got hurt is Responsible for not being careful this is so good line in my opinion the worker is responsible is for this. He/ she can decide how can you get hurt. What work can hurt them .

    1. I'm not sure about this because... you can never tell whether it is based on a bug with the AI that caused the civilian to get hurt or if it was carelessness based on the path of the citizen . I will go for option B for both ; because the owner of tech-solves should be aware of every activity going on in his / her company ; because whether it was the fault of the civilian or not , the owner will either have to figure out the bug if it was the fault of the AI or also cover up for the treatment of the civilian if it was the civilians fault ; to avoid the loss of workers due to someone getting hurt in his / her company.

      1. I think you can actually find out who is at fault. Bugs don't just come and then disappear immediately, do they? they stay there and if they are not taken care of they will get worse. If someone gets hurt while using the AI a simple system diagnostics will help find the problem. On the other hand if the worker is at fault, the AI won't be shown to have any bugs. It was simply the employee who was being careless. An AI uses the concept of garbage in garbage out. This means if someone mediocre handles it, the result it will give will also be mediocre.

        1. I'm not sure about this because... yeah, bugs don't just come and disappear immediately. But what if the system gets hacked or something? From my research some problems caused by bugs are as a result of external interference with the program's performance that was not anticipated or planned by the developer/programmer. And if I'm not wrong, hacking into the AI's system is obviously an external interference that is totally most times not done or planned by the developer. So, the AI's system gets hacked, it starts to malfunction and then causes harm to employees in the company and someway somehow that is supposed to be the employee's fault?!
          Basically, I feel it's not entirely the company or the employee's fault because, if we're still on the issue of the system getting hacked it cannot be blamed entirely on the company nor the employee.

      2. I agree with what they're saying because it's not always the Ai's fault it could be the person's fault or there could be a hacker.

        1. I disagree because the company should and must take full responsibility for the AI because they have introduced it. The robot should be failproof so that no hacker can hack it. Even if it is the person's fault, the person may be able to compensate for it. If not, it is the work of the judiciary to solve the issues. A robot is merely a machine created by humans and it does not have the right to take the fundamental rights of any person.

        2. Actually all what you said could some how be true, but for it all the fault is on the creator of the Ai bots . Why I say so is because if the creator of the Ai bots probably they will be a very low risk of it being attack by hackers and also there will be a very low risk of it being malfunctioning while is on work or during any point in time.
          So in conclusion the actually fault of any Ai malfunction is on the creator's head or hands so the creators should be more precise in the building of the Ai bots. Thanks.

          1. Sorry for the in completed essay. Here is the full version of the essay . I agree with you witty_ cheetah , but in my opinion I agree with with both option A and option C. In option A, the responsibility lies with the owner of the talent to ensure proper programming of the robot, emphasizing the importance of programming to prevent misuse or harm. Additionally, option C highlights the human tendency to sometimes mistreat robots when they do not perform as expected, leading to potential retaliatory behavior from the robot. It is essential to acknowledge these factors and approach the development and use of technology with ethical considerations in mind. Thank you.🙂

        3. I'm not sure about this because... I think that A would be more responsible because company has developed the ai and it's their responsibility that AI should work properly if AI can't be managed then they should not kept in the workplace.

        4. I agree because... It not always the AI's fault, it is sometimes hackers programmers etc.

        5. I'm not sure about this because... If the person give the robot extra security what will happen

    2. Personally ,
      I feel like A is not completely response for the problem concerning ai because I feel like the only reason ai can as developed was for the greater good of humans
      They had a great Intention for the use of ai but the individuals tht tend to use ai in a negative way is response for what they do not the developers
      This just my personal opinion about your answer

      1. I agree because they agree that AI could be good for humans because some people can use AI for bad use .
        People cannot like ai because people can hack into the bot and people may think that it's something and then the bot could get the person's personal things. Like finding their address, hacking their facebook,finding their face, or stealing their voice and using it for other things.

    3. I totally agree with your point of view. First of all, the option A is by far the best option to rely on. The company is be responsible for all the works of development of AI. The company must have checked AI carefully with covering of defects and potential circumstances that can be created by AI. But when it comes, to the defects, it may blame employees whereas it may take the credit of making a new useful invention if anything usefull was created.Thats my view about Option A. It might be controversial but yes it is what I think.

      About option C, yes the employee who got injured must had to more careful. But Option A is comparitively reasonable. Its juat my opinion.

      What do you think?

    4. I agree with the saying that both opinions a and c are responsible, While artificial intelligence (AI) systems have the prospective to boost the workplace – for example by improving workplace safety – if not designed or executed well, they also pose risks to workers’ fundamental rights and well-being over and above any impression on the number of employment . For example , AI systems could standardize human biases in workplace choice. Moreover, it is always fuzzy whether workers are interacting with an AI system or with a real human, decisions made through AI systems can be tough to understand, and it is often indefinite as to who is responsible if anything goes wrong when AI systems are used in the workplace.

      These risks, joined with the fast pace of AI development and deployment, underscore the crucial need for policy plotters to move briskly and thrive policies to make sure that AI used in the workplace is trustworthy. Following the OECD AI Principles, “trustworthy AI” means that the development and use of AI is safe and respectful of fundamental rights such as privacy, fairness, and labor rights and that the way it gets to employment-related choice is indisputable and understandable by humans. It also means that employers, workers, and job seekers are made mindful of and are glass-like about their use of AI and that it is obvious who is accountable if something goes wrong. thank you

    5. I agree with you honorable_wilddog, the reason being is that every organization is always responsible for the well being of their employees in the workspace, moreover, if the robots will eventually turn out to malfunction, it shouldn't have been placed at the workplace, because it is not safe, and the employees are supposed to be in a safe environment whiles working.
      With the option C, I also agree with you, this is because if most of the time the company uses AI, and things happened without a problem, that means that the employee might have been the cause of the robot malfunction. Because the robot will not malfunction out of the blue after doing a lot of things in the company for a long period of time.

    6. I don't really agree with this.. because it might be a bug and the people who made the robots might have had nothing to do with it so the people who made it might get blamed for something they did not do and the world does not want people who are innocent get arrested so this is a bit of a bad idea but I do get where this is coming from because maybe they did do something wrong and do a mistake with the programing

    7. I agree because... The entire company is responsible for the AI ,as everyone contributes to its design and construction. If the AI cannot be managed it shouldn't stay in workplaces. I also strongly disagree with point C because workers are not the main culprit bringing the AI to the workplace and they cannot predict accidents.
      Workers shouldn't be blamed for accidents instead, I think the creators of the AI are accountable. They should have identified errors or mistakes right from the start of production.

      1. I agree because... It's true the workers aren't the culprit, everyone makes mistakes it could be a flaw in the coding, and AI can't be tested in conceived areas it needs a lot of space to work and you need a lot of protection for the testing. I can't entirely disagree with option C because the workers aren't the culprit the workers are just doing their jobs not creating anything big.
        Thank you.

    8. I agree 👍 in your opinion, because we the humans (scientists)are responsible because they are the ones that developed and designed for us to be a betterment for the world. AI help in different ways like in the aspect of learning, working, in medical issues, in some labor works and so on. Yes AI can't be replaced by man in terms of teaching the students, because they students will understand the teacher more than the AI machines. Also AI don't have the emotion,creativity and have the zeal to do any work more than humans. In athletes games, if an AI machine are asked to run a race, it will get to a point it will break down and malfunction, but when a human is asked to run it will have the zeal of winning the game (race).C had said that the worker who had got hurt is Responsible for not being careful this is so good line in my opinion the worker is responsible is for this. He/ she can decide how can you get hurt. What work can hurt them .
      Thanks.

      1. I agree with you to an extent that humans will teach students better than AI because of the emotions, creativity and zeal to teach and impact knowledge and morals to the students.
        The one I disagree with you is when you said that the worker is responsible for his actions don't you think that the company is responsible for the AI malfunction because it was the company who invented and developed the AI.
        So my question here is the company still to blame or the worker who was just following the instructions given to him?

      2. You and I don't agree. Alright, so what if the process of creating AI was a complete success? Humans, or scientists, ensured that errors were avoided. AI will ultimately start to slowly lose one or more components and start to act differently. As you pointed out, when an AI machine is expected to run a race in an athlete game, it will eventually malfunction and break. You know, this happened at a point, without human error. Furthermore, neither of them alone is responsible for the worker's lack of caution; rather, both of them at times can be responsible differently at different situations. So, the humans should be careful and workers should keep the AI robot in place.

    9. Personally ,I disagree with opinion C. I don't think the workers are responsible for being hurt because the AI bot malfunctioned, making the situation accidental (unexpected). Even though some workers don't carefully use the AI bot it doesn't make them responsible for their misfortune, it is the people who created it that are responsible the workers who didn't carefully use it are at fault.

    10. I disagree because... In my view, I agree with person A, who mentioned that the company developing AI should take responsibility. Just like when we buy a car, the manufacturer is responsible for its safety. Similarly, the creators of AI should ensure it's used ethically. However, saying the worker is solely responsible for getting hurt might not cover all situations. For instance, think about a construction worker; they're careful, but if they're given faulty equipment, it's not just their responsibility if something goes wrong. It's about creating a safe environment for everyone. And there's more to the AI story. Imagine AI being used in hospitals. The responsibility isn't just on the developers; doctors and policymakers also come into play. Doctors need to trust the AI diagnoses, and policymakers set the rules to make sure it's used properly.
      Now, back to the worker side of things. Picture a factory worker. They might be careful, but if they're not given the right training for new machines, accidents can happen. This highlights how important it is for companies to give workers the right skills to handle new technology safely.
      So, when it comes to AI, it's like a group effort. Developers, workers, policymakers, and even users need to work together. Real-life stories show that shared responsibility is key to making AI work for everyone while keeping things safe and ethical.

    11. I have a different view about this, I think I will go with A as the comment I agree the most with because, I feel the developer should be blamed because probably there is something they didn't get right during the programming or they failed to allow the AI get acquainted with some possible human behaviors especially during upgrade and fixing bugs, so the AI could have seen the person as a possible threat.
      For the option of least I agree with I would say option c, my reason being that, the company trusted what the developer had programmed and started using it with the hope that it was probably safe and work friendly! I know it is the duty of the employer to make sure the work place is totally safe, but sometimes they might not be aware because they have full trust in the robot.

    12. honorable wilddog
      I agree because... options A and C are the most common reasons there can be an AI accident. It can either be the operator's fault or the developing company fault because, if the developer has done every thing that He or She is supposed to do there won't have been any accident.
      According to option C, the occurrence of the accident might have been because of the misuse of the operator or the incorrect order that is given to the AI. That is why it is always advisable to read and understand the usage manuals before operating any type of machines.

    13. I disagree because...
      Although a the company who made AI in general might seem like they could be held responsible but as you have read they are not the one who created that specific robot therefore the person/company who made that should be held responsible and also -going into more reasoning- the person who honorable wilddog said was responsible the one who hurt themselves I don't believe because if they hurt themselves on a normal day of work, they can't just run away if they don't know whats happening so when the robot hurt her/he the person/company should be the ones that should be held responsible.
      That is why I went with option B
      Thank you.

    14. I agree with option A. The company that built the AI is responsible because it developed the AI. We should all be accountable for our actions. The AI should be tested more than thrice to make sure they're safe for usage so that if they malfunction, it won't be the fault of the developers but that of the users. According to option C, users of AI should also be careful while using AI. They should bear in mind that AI isn't perfect and can malfunction. To make the AI last longer though, they should avoid dust and water coming in contact with it.
      Thank you.

    15. I disagree with you honorable wildog, in your opinion C is not encouraging, individuals will be a lot of pains at the point of that injury period, so blaming them is like making them feel inferior. Inferiority complete can lead to anxiety so we should not blame the ones injured.

    16. I can't fully agree with you because I believe that innovation involves making mistakes, trial and error, and acknowledging that there's always a chance of something going wrong. Blaming the company is justified if the error was overlooked. However, an issue can only be addressed if we recognize and acknowledge it. This should serve as a learning opportunity for the company, and if this mistake repeats I believe the company should be held accountable. The worker should have been careful knowing that a machine may have bugs and errors too.

      1. I agree with you communicative engine , as we all know Ai was made for our comfort . To make it completely, there will be always some problems . If once got the solutions to these issues, Ai can be very useful . As there are always some hurdles which needs to be crossed before achieving success , in the same way Ai also works .
        Also anyone can make mistakes, so we should move ahead and defeat more and more hurdles ……….

    17. I respectfully challenge honorable wilddog because blaming the person that got will not help the case I believe that its not the workers fault because its the company, because although the worker might have built it he was given orders.

    18. I humbly disagree with you based on what you said about C because it's not actually their fault because sometimes they will not know that it is hurtful since it's all known that AI is a helping instrument that helps to improve our everyday life and activities so they might think it's not hurting and therefore handle it as if it's their friend so if it hurts them sometimes it's their fault.

      1. Actually, what you are saying is true but, I hope you are aware that most AI have there own specific duties and activities to do as they are assign to do duties form there own potential.
        So in conclusion what I am trying to say is that what so ever accident done by AI is the fault of the creators and also remember that AI are assign to their own specific responsibility as one AI bots. Thanks.

        1. I'm not sure about this because... The act or saying that it is the cause of the creator is not actually right towards my own perspective, why because it's high possibility to be hacked is seriously or rather a fact whereby it can be truly hacked, it may cause serious accident or danger towards the workers or even the people in the particular location where the accident may have oocured or occur.

          So In conclusion, don't you think that accident may actually be done or caused by hackers? Thanks.

          1. Actually from my own understanding, I don't concur with your reasoning why because, if the AI are being able to be hacked isn't it the cause of the creator? Whereby he or she did not input the right security softwares whereby it will be easy to be hacked by unknown hackers which actually for me is really possible.

            So in conclusion, I hope you have been able to be convinced about, the fault all lays on the creator's and not on any one else. Thanks.

    19. I can agree with your choice but I can't totally agree. I agree with (A) because the company that developed the AI could have made the robot a bit safer so like you said the company that developed the AI is responsible, but I have a few different thoughts about (C). you are right saying that the worker is responsible for not being careful, but also it could be an accident. Many people have accidents. So yeah I hope you understand what i'm saying

    20. Hello,
      I disagree because the company should be the one responsible in this case. I think this is because the programmer is not 100% sure if it is working right. Probably for the beginning, it will work perfectly but when it starts to take time working that's the point where it's going to go crazy. The robot should have multiple tries in different situations and they should verify if it's working correctly. Even if the person wasn't being careful it's not 100% the worker's fault. A robot is created by a human and some robots that don't work correctly can have their control of themselves.

    21. I'm not sure about this because I agreed with you in the beginning with choice A but not C. I say this because I believe that the worker is there to do his or her job and not watch out somebody else. The worker should feel safe in that environment and not like they have to constantly stop working to check if anything is coming their way. It's either the worker is doing it's job or making sure he or she is safe. Personally I believe they should do their job and the person in charge should be held accountable for any damages unless the person who got hurt got themselves hurt on purpose.

    22. Option C seems to be the one with which I agree the least since I believe that the worker is not to blame for the machine's safety, even if it is his fault. Instead, it is better to concentrate on the problems that will ensure the safety of both the worker and the machine.
      EXCITED TO SEE CORRECTIONS
      Regards

    23. I probably would not say so. I would pick either A or B as C is not an option to me. But think about a normal factory.. when a worker gets hurt by a piece of machinery, people usually blame the company for not keeping their equipment safe. Similarly in this high-tech future company, when a robot malfunctions and injures a worker, the owner of Techsolves should be held accountable. As the owner has the ultimate decision-making power in the company, he is the one who decided to purchase the AI-included machinery and using it in the workplace. That's why he got all the responsibility for the consequences of that decision.

  • I think they will still have schools but will be on a computer as now they have AI .

  • i think that i agree with a because if it isn't safe then they shouldn't keep it and they one hundred percent should not sell it to anyone or make any duplicates of it if it can hurt people although it would have been safer if the person who got hurt also stepped out of the way when they noticed that the robot was malfunctioning instead of staying where they were and getting hurt so even though a is a very good option and i believe it i also think that c is true

  • In my opinion,the malfunction isn't anyone's fault.It was an honest mistake,which no one should be blamed for.Don't you agree?

    1. Hi, thanks for your contribution! This is definitely an interesting take. However, if there is no one to blame, the victims of potential AI malfunctioning errors will always be people, and not the company who are creating and benefiting from AI products. Would you agree? In a sense, this means that the AI companies may be able to create risky products as push them to the market as they won't be held to account for risks coming out of their products?

      1. Hello,
        In the case of malfunctioning, there is no way we can say that the fault is from nobody, I have experienced AI malfunctioning, I tried to do some homework with the snapchat AI's and the thing suddenly started replying to me in Russian. In such a case can we say it is nobody's fault?

        I once heard about a story at Jupiter hospital at Florida, they tried to use AI's to cure cancer but it did not work out as planned because of AI's malfunctioning, in this case to can we say it is nobody's fault?
        It is so glaringly obvious that in the two points I stated above that the AI companies are at fault.
        If companies create risky products and push them to the market, the disadvantage is still to them. Why? because they would succeed in damaging the fast-building good name of "artificial intelligence". Which could make people loathe AI's which could make them go out of business.

        THANK YOU

      2. You are absolutely correct. I never thought about it that way.

  • I think A because it s the company fault if the workspace is unsafe then you should not work there. The company made the AI so it is responible. I also agree with C because if he hurt himself then he isnt being carefull.

  • I think that the owner of Techsolves is responsible because the owner should keep the staff safe at all time. They are responsible for checking the upkeep of all equipment that the staff use. C is the option I agree with less because the company they work for should be in charge - it's not their fault if there has been a malfunction.

    1. I understand your point resourceful_meteor.
      That's the reason I strongly agree with you. It's important for employers to prioritize the safety of their staff and provide a secure working environment. The owner of Techsolves should indeed take responsibility for ensuring the upkeep of equipment and addressing any potential malfunctions. However, it's also worth considering that sometimes unforeseen accidents or malfunctions can occur despite proper maintenance. In those cases, it might not necessarily be the fault of the company or the employees. It's a complex situation, but I agree that the company should take steps to keep their staff safe. Safety should always be a top priority!You're right, the owner of Techsolves has a responsibility to keep their staff safe. They should regularly check the equipment and ensure proper maintenance. However, accidents can happen even with the best precautions in place. In those cases, it might not be the fault of the company or the employees. It's important for the company to have protocols in place to address any malfunctions or accidents promptly. Safety should always be a priority, and it's a shared responsibility between the company and the employees.

    2. I agree that the owner should try to keep the staff safe but one person even if he is the CEO but it's pretty hard to be at multiple places at once, also one person cant keep everyone safe someone is bound to get hurt no matter the time or place. Also you can't tell when bugs can make the A.I malfunctions no matter how advance robots can get it will never be like a human.

    3. I agree because... Any accident that happens in the company it is, the responsibility of the manufacturer but still thinking it can also be the fault of some hackers who tends to highjack the AI bots for their own selfish needs? Don't you think so just saying because now, most of days hackers are becoming more experienced in that third aspects. Thanks

  • I agree with the opinions a and b. I also disagree with opinion c. I agree with these opinions, because I feel that the company if responsible due to the company owning these machines and coding them. If the company coded them correctly; I am pretty sure no one would have gotten injured. This would be very irreponsible if the company did not make sure that the AI was safe. To add on, I feel as if its not the employes' fault, because the organization should have made sure that they were safe before letting the machine by workers. Also, the company owner should check the robot daily for malfunctions.

    1. I agree with you on some parts, but I don't think that option B is a reasonable response. I think this because, the company that took use of the AI probably wouldn't have known that the AI had a malfunction. Like you said, if the company coded them correctly, there wouldn't be any accident. So wouldn't it be safe to assume that Techsolves thought the same?

    2. Hello,
      I also agree with options A and B and disagree with option C, for the same reasons. The company should have taken the time to make sure their product was safe to have around humans before releasing it to tech companies. People do make mistakes but robots don't, so the mistake falls on the programmers. It could be a hardware malfunction which is most likely no one's fault, but they should try their best to prevent those types of malfunctions. I also believe the owner of Techsolve does have a portion of that responsibility to make sure that equipment that their workers are around is as safe as possible, and I mean "as possible" because sometimes the job itself is dangerous.

  • I agree with both opinions A and B. The company and owner are responsible for this, since they haven't taken the time to check if the AI is safe. However, I think the owner should take more blame because they are the biggest leader in the company and they are most likely the one who made it. They can easily ask for more testing to be done, but they didn't and now they have to pay the price.

    1. I completely agree with you. The owner should be compensating the worker and making the AI better, since they were the one who came up with the idea and is the one who didn't test the AI first. The company should then handle the issue themselves and the CEO.

  • I agree with option A the most because the company who developed the A.I. should know whether or not the A.I. is safe enough to sell to other businesses who need them. Techsolves the company who purchased the A.I. is most likely not aware of the issues with A.I. and if they are it is not their fault for being sold defective A.I.. And it is most definitely not the employees fault because they were most likely not informed that the A.I. may not function properly.

  • I agree most in order withA, C ,and B
    The idea that we place responsibility on a robot, in my opinion, is wrong because a robot is something that has been programmed by a person to perform a specific tasks. Therefore, to determine exactly who is responsible, we must look at the cause of the person’s injury. Did a sudden malfunction occur in the robot due to an error in its programming? In this case, the responsibility lies with the programmer or the robot’s manufacturer. But if the robot is performing its work normally and a person is injured due to his interference in the robot’s work, then the person responsible is the injured person

  • I agree with A the most because the company created the AI and it's their responsibility to make sure that the robots work well and don't malfunction and they shouldn't allow anything potentially unsafe in a work space.