Legally? I imagine if the checklist was specific and precise enough, and if the people following it were prevented from deviating or circumventing it in any way, or otherwise exercise their own agency, then I think you'd have a chance arguing in court that this process is effectively automated.
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.
> A human should be able to tell whether they are breaking the law or doing something that is dangerous and, thus, stop.
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.
