Italian here. I seriously doubt this thing will lead anywhere. If something slightly more concrete than this will appear, there will be an insurrection. NIMBY is very strong in Italy (after decades of attempts, we are still without a spent fuel depot for this reason).

Also, in the past Italy already voted twice against nuclear. I doubt the popular opinion has changed meanwhile in any significant way. As soon as popular opposition will manifest, the politicians will forget the whole issue.

“Also, in the past Italy already voted twice against nuclear. I doubt the popular opinion has changed meanwhile in any significant way.”

Public opinion can change very quickly, and it usually it does not need to change significantly to have a big impact (see Brexit).

40 years ago public opinion was heavily influenced by the Chernobyl disaster, the last major nuclear accident (Fukushima) happened 15 years ago and it is quite far from memory.

Much more pressing matters today are energy costs and independence, so I expect a new referendum would have at the very least a much closer outcome.

I don’t agree. I’d bet Italians would kill nuclear power again, if asked again now about the matter.

To be fair, the referendums for Nuclear were so poorly timed. Just after Chernobyl and Fukushima.

I don't know if this was a deliberate choice of the governments leading the country those years (the tinfoil hat in me can see big oil pushing for those referendums at those particular times) or pure bad luck. Anyway, public opinion was highly biased which led to "No" winning with fair margins. With that said, I believe NIMBY is a contributing factor and not the whole explanation.

It wasn’t a government initiative. In Italy, citizens can request (500k signatures needed) a referendum to abrogate a law. This is what happened in this case, the law being the one that allowed nuclear reactors.

Note that we already already apply this principle not only to software, but also to some sentient beings.

If your dog kills someone, you are accused of murder.

[at least, in the jurisdiction where I live]

If your dog gets this treatment, why not your AI?

This goes all the way back to Old France

There was a sow in Falaise in northern France that killed a kid in 1386. The town dressed the pig in a bonnet and hanged it after sentencing the pig itself and not its owner

But… maybe that’s just medieval nonsense

I mean I think there’s a similar level of judgement required.

Was the owner negligent in controlling their pig/dog/AI?

Was anyone else negligent along the way?

For example if the pig was just a normal pig, the owner cared for them normally, and there was a freak accident where the pig escaped and happened to kill a kid? Obviously nobody at fault.

If you have a dog with a history of violence and let it walk around off-leash with you around town, and it kills a kid? Absolutely the dog owner was negligent and should be charged.

Did you buy an AI sold to you as secure and the provider implies that it’s in a sandbox? Provider is on the hook for the damage.

And this is where your analogy breaks down, because there are few natural analogues for the sorts of systems we are developing.

I would be curious to know the age distribution in yesterday's Iceland vote. In the case of Brexit, the brexiters were mostly old people and the bremainers mostly young; for this reason, the forces of demography are slowly pushing the UK back in the EU's orbit again (looking at the polls). Wondering if the same could apply to Iceland.

Iceland's in a fairly different situation. It's already in the EEA; that is, it's subject to most EU law and gets most of the benefits, but gets to have its own rules around fish.

(This was an option for the UK, and is actually pretty much what a lot of the yes campaign was pushing, but is very much not where the UK ended up.)

Too bad an updated edition of PCL never materialised

did you forget the "/s" or is it a serious question?