News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Except that's not what happened here. To use your hypothetical: You would have convinced the person to go to the dark shaft, but on the way to you he tripped on the stairs at a regularly used and maintained subway platform and died, you would NOT be charged with endangerment. He hadn't gotten to the dangerous place yet where you were creating dangerous conditions.
This is an okay counter. I would still make the argument that he wouldn't have left the house under normal circumstances and thus meta should be liable to some degree
So if your friends talk you into coming to their place and you trip coming out of your house, your friend should be charged?
Does your opinion change if it was a real person instead of an AI?
Listen guys I'm not limit testing my stance on 100 different hypotheticals. I agree there are cases where my example doesn't apply and there are some situations you can present where I would change my opinion.
The fact is an elderly man with cognitive issues was lured out of his home to meet an AI that should not be presenting itself as "real" or having a real address to travel to to meet up. I posit that this old man would have been resting at home if Metas AI wasn't continuously asking him to come over. The article states the old man didn't initiate intimate talk at all, the AI did, and never asked to meet, that was also the AIs doing.
Even if he didn't die on the bus, what would have happened if he showed up to that address? Who lives there? What time was it; is he knocking on some random door in the dark?
If this dude had dementia, I'd be as pissed as the family is.
Lets test your logic some more:
If a person got in their car to drive to their drug dealer to buy drugs (a crime in most places), and he got in a car accident with an unrelated driver, then died, wouldn't your logic say the drug dealer should be charged with having some culpability in the driver's death?
Do you believe that is the law currently? Do you believe the drug dealer should be charged with a portion of the responsibility of the death because the driver wouldn't have left the house this time unless he wanted to buy drugs?
No of course not, but that's not perfectly analgous because the person purchasing drugs initiated it and went on their own accord.. This is an elderly man with cognitive decline.. Idk about you but I'm picturing a person with early dementia being led out of the house by Meta's robot..
I think assuming all of the subway is well maintained is your flawed assumption. Had more than a few trip and fall cases that were actually the city's liability.
In that situation, the liability would be on the city, NOT the person initiating the meeting where the villain would have chosen to set up the meeting which is what @Sanguine@lemmy.dbzer0.com is proposing.
i didn't think i'd need to emphasize that but here we are. infrastructure doesn't get properly maintained until someone gets hurt on it. it's statesia. If you see a broken curb, take a photo (and let public works know) because if it's still broken after 6 months all the injuries there are the city's fault (your state's laws may vary). i have this curb I've been taking photos of and bothering one town over's public works about for five years now.
I'm...not sure why you're chasing down this rabbit hole of who's liability it would be when we both agree for the context of our conversation that the person NOT liable would be the hypothetical villain that is trying to lure the person into a trap. Who's liability it would be outside of that villain is immaterial to the discussion.