I doubt it. A human should be able to tell whether they are breaking the law or doing something that is dangerous and, thus, stop. If a human moved forward with something they should have known was dangerous or illegal, it would be grounds for negligence or worse.
TeMPOraL|3 years ago
Yes, but:
- When determining whether or not a process is automated is legally important, it's usually because it is fine (legally) if done by humans - it's doing it automatically, at scale, that is the issues.
- White-collar workers generally don't do things that are obviously dangerous. They're crunching numbers and typing data into forms, and their input is usually a small component of any danger materializing.
The way I see it, the difference here is whether a human worker is able to override their checklist in cases where the action is neither illegal nor dangerous, but they realize it's obviously wrong or unfair.