Hacker News Reader

Comment by a3n | Hacker News Reader

There would never be machine ownership in this (or probably any other) case. It would merely be a case of the change of status (death of the owner) going undetected for awhile.

It would be a machine operated business, but not machine ownership. That would require a change in law.

View on HN

Probably first such machines will operate illegaly in some countries and hire protection from humans for its phyisical assets.

By definition, if a jurisdiction doesn't recognise the corporation at all, it isn't a corporation. If the jurisdiction requires human beneficial owners to recognise it as a corporation, the named human beneficial owners are the owners, even if they're very passive owners who don't have any say in the operations or take anything out of the business (like, for example, the average AAPL stockholder). And we already have a word for software that prevents people with the legal title to assets from using them and pays out to other people instead: it's not "machine owned corporation", it's malware.

> illegally

How can a machine break the law?

EDIT: If there is a positive answer, it might be similar to how money and other assets can be sued in asset forfeiture cases.

Law: do not kill. Machine kills. It has broken the law, and would, presumably, be subject to asset seizure, temporary deactivation, or, in extreme cases, permanent termination. Much like how other 'persons' break the law and are held accountable.

Without a change in law, I don't see it. The owner or manufacturer of the machine is liable; they're subject to the law and prosecution. The machine could "suffer" the actions you describe, but that would be at most punishment against the owner, or more neutrally just removal of a hazard.

Guns and cars aren't prosecuted for murder. I'm assuming autonomous cars won't be either.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com