Summary#
A-5711 would add a rule to New Jersey law; it is an introduced bill and is not law. In certain civil cases and criminal prosecutions, a defendant could not use the claim that artificial intelligence autonomously caused the harm as a defense. The stated goal is to prevent that defense, while leaving other defenses available.
- In a civil action alleging harm from AI, the rule would apply to a defendant who developed, modified, or used the AI.
- In a prosecution under New Jersey’s criminal code, a defendant could not assert that AI autonomously caused harm to the alleged victim.
- Civil defendants could still present other defenses and evidence about causation, foreseeability, and another person or entity’s comparative fault. Criminal defendants could still present other defenses.
- The rule would apply immediately if enacted, including to civil claims and crimes not yet barred by the relevant time limits.
What it means for you#
- People bringing civil claims: The bill would prevent a defendant from relying on AI’s autonomous behavior as a defense. It would not itself make the defendant liable or change the other requirements for proving a civil claim.
- People or businesses that develop, modify, or use AI: If sued over alleged harm, they could not assert that the AI autonomously caused the harm as a defense. They could still use other defenses and relevant evidence.
- People accused of crimes: A defendant could not use the AI-autonomy claim as a defense to a covered prosecution. The bill says other criminal defenses remain available.
- General public: The bill does not ban AI use or automatically assign responsibility for harm to an AI developer, modifier, or user.
Money#
No cost information is in the available material.
- The bill provides no spending amount, staffing requirement, fee, fine, or funding source.
- It does not estimate any effect on court or enforcement costs.
What is unclear#
- The bill uses the definition of “artificial intelligence” in a 2024 New Jersey law. The supplied statement describes that definition, but the law itself was not supplied, so its exact wording could not be checked.
- The bill does not define “autonomously caused” or explain how a court should distinguish that claim from other evidence about causation.
- It does not set out a process for deciding when the rule applies.
- The bill would reach civil cases involving developers, modifiers, or users, but does not explain how the rule would apply when several parties were involved.
- Passage is uncertain because the bill has only been introduced and referred to a committee.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to prevent a defendant from avoiding responsibility by arguing that the AI, rather than the defendant, acted autonomously.
- A possible argument for the approach is that it bars that specific defense without removing other ways to contest a claim or prosecution.
- In civil cases, defendants could still present evidence about causation, foreseeability, and another party’s comparative fault.
Case against#
- One concern is that the bill bars the defense without defining what counts as AI acting autonomously.
- It applies to developers, modifiers, and users, but does not explain how responsibility should be assessed when their roles differ.
- In criminal cases, the bill bars the same kind of defense but does not provide further guidance on how the rule relates to the facts of a particular prosecution.
- The rule may affect how defendants can describe AI’s role in an event, even though the bill preserves other defenses and relevant evidence.