Hacker News Reader

That would be letting the courts interpret how the existing law applies to a new situation through. They may decide something that is not ideal.

View on HN

>They may decide something that is not ideal.

I don't follow your argument. That same problem applies to legislators and regulators.

Also, I don't see any legal novelty. Same shit, different tech.

Legislators are at least supposed to consider different positions, interests and consequences and decide in the interest of the citizenry. Courts are supposed to just look at the law and precedents.

And I meant novelty for AI in general. This specific case does seem like same shit different tech.

From a legal standpoint it is not a new situation. If you create some novel invention and use it to rob a bank, the laws against robbery do not need reinterpretation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com