Dear ladies and gentleman of the jury. I will now argue that the LLM that programmed the fire breathing dog, did so in such a manner as to make it sentient. The dog was able to and did act of it's own accord when it killed the woman, Ms Smith. The defendant here did not create sentience in the dog, nor could he have known turning the dog on, outside, may result in the fire breathing dog torch a bystander to death.
You can see here, the dogs walking and urination patterns closely align with a real, organic dog. This definitively proves that the dog killed the woman, and now the defendant, who only released the dog into nature. Thank you very much.
That's a legit point under common law. The owner or keeper of a wild animal is generally strictly liable for damage caused by the animal, except if the animal is local fauna, in which case liability terminates on the animal's escape back into the wild. I don't know of any place with native flame throwing robots.
Theoretically if Amazon drones become wide spread in the environment and I capture one, attach a flamethrower to it, and the above scenario happens after I release it back into the wild, would that defense then apply as Amazon drones are native to the environment?
That would probably fall under intentional torts rather than strict animal liability. If you do, put up some vague "is this your drone?" flyers with a blurry photo, wait a bit, take the drone to the vet and pay the bill in your name, and build the evidence of your keepership, because you'll have to admit being a keeper for the defense to work. Also, owners or keepers are liable, and this is one of those rare times in law when or also means and, and Amazon will probably help you defend the case in chief, though they will probably come after you next. This does not constitute legal advice.
Dear ladies and gentleman of the jury. I will now argue that the LLM that programmed the fire breathing dog, did so in such a manner as to make it sentient. The dog was able to and did act of it's own accord when it killed the woman, Ms Smith. The defendant here did not create sentience in the dog, nor could he have known turning the dog on, outside, may result in the fire breathing dog torch a bystander to death.
You can see here, the dogs walking and urination patterns closely align with a real, organic dog. This definitively proves that the dog killed the woman, and now the defendant, who only released the dog into nature. Thank you very much.
That's a legit point under common law. The owner or keeper of a wild animal is generally strictly liable for damage caused by the animal, except if the animal is local fauna, in which case liability terminates on the animal's escape back into the wild. I don't know of any place with native flame throwing robots.
Theoretically if Amazon drones become wide spread in the environment and I capture one, attach a flamethrower to it, and the above scenario happens after I release it back into the wild, would that defense then apply as Amazon drones are native to the environment?
That would probably fall under intentional torts rather than strict animal liability. If you do, put up some vague "is this your drone?" flyers with a blurry photo, wait a bit, take the drone to the vet and pay the bill in your name, and build the evidence of your keepership, because you'll have to admit being a keeper for the defense to work. Also, owners or keepers are liable, and this is one of those rare times in law when or also means and, and Amazon will probably help you defend the case in chief, though they will probably come after you next. This does not constitute legal advice.