The paper concerns the problem of the legal responsibility of autonomous machines. In our opinion it boils down to the question of whether such machines can be seen as real agents through the prism of folk-psychology. We argue that autonomous machines cannot be granted the status of legal agents. Although this is quite possible from purely technical point of view, since the law is a conventional tool of regulating social interactions and as such can accommodate various legislative constructs, including legal responsibility of autonomous artificial agents, we believe that it would remain a mere 'law in books', never materializing as 'law in action'. It is not impossible to imagine that the evolution of our conceptual apparatus will reach a stage, when autonomous robots become full-blooded moral and legal agents. However, today at least, we seem to be far from this point.

This paper addresses the black-box problem in artificial intelligence (AI), and the related problem of explainability of AI in the legal context. We argue, first, that the black box problem is, in fact, a superficial one as it results from an overlap of four different – albeit interconnected – issues: the opacity problem, the strangeness problem, the unpredictability problem, and the justification problem. Thus, we propose a framework for discussing both the black box problem and the explainability of AI. We argue further that contrary to often defended claims the opacity issue is not a genuine problem. We also dismiss the justification problem. Further, we describe the tensions involved in the strangeness and unpredictability problems and suggest some ways to alleviate them.

Although much ink has been spilled on different aspects of legal concepts, the approach based on the developments of cognitive science is a still neglected area of study. The “mental” and cognitive aspect of these concepts, i.e., their features as mental constructs and cognitive tools, especially in the light of the developments of the cognitive sciences, is discussed quite rarely. The argument made by this paper is that legal concepts are best understood as mental representations. The piece explains what mental representations are and why this view matters. The explanation of legal concepts, understood as mental representations is one of (at least) three levels of explanation within legal philosophy, but—as will be argued—it is the most fundamental level. This paper analyzes the consequences of such understanding of concepts used in the field of legal philosophy. Special emphasis is put on the current debate on the analogical or amodal nature of concepts.

Much controversy has arisen in recent years about the relation between legal philosophy and cognitive science, with some authors announcing a revolution brought about in law by the advances in the scientific study of cognition. At the same time, pessimistic declarations were made, and the significance of cognitive science for law and legal philosophy was denied. In this paper I argue that representatives of legal philosophy are now facing a "tension problem" which comes as a consequence of the following beliefs: that legal philosophy should be naturalized; that contemporary cognitive science is not a source of knowledge proper, that is, a source of naturalization; and that contemporary cognitive science is the best available source of knowledge about cognitive mechanisms. To illustrate the significance of the problem, a case study is presented that concerns research devoted to abstract concepts and its significance for the issues analyzed by legal philosophers, such as legal concepts and legal cognition. More general remarks about the manner of naturalizing jurisprudence are also presented.

The aim of this paper is very modest. First, we want to assess how differentstrategies of naturalization might deal with the need of using folk psychologyin legal domain. Second, we want to check whether folk psychology is indeedindispensable in the legal domain. Third, we want to describe possible problemswith one strategy of naturalization, i.e. radical naturalization with classicalelimination. Our conclusion will be that despite various attempts, every projectof naturalization of law will have to resolve the tension between law and folkpsychology and such resolution would not be achieved by simple reduction orelimination of folk psychology. A variety of non-standard solutions might be inplace to resolve this tension. We will only outline those strategies here.