No abstract

This article discusses the regulation of artificial intelligence from a Jewish perspective, with an emphasis on the regulation of machine learning and its application to autonomous vehicles and machine learning. Through the Biblical story of Adam and Eve as well as Golem legends from Jewish folklore, we derive several basic principles that underlie a Jewish perspective on the moral and legal personhood of robots and other artificially intelligent agents. We argue that religious ethics in general, and Jewish ethics in particular, show us that the dangers of granting moral personhood to robots and in particular to autonomous vehicles lie not in the fact that they lack a soul—or consciousness or feelings or interests—but because to do so weakens our own ability to develop as fully autonomous legal and moral persons. Instead, we argue that existing legal persons should continue to maintain legal control over artificial agents, while natural persons assume ultimate moral responsibility for choices made by artificial agents they employ in their service. In the final section of the article we discuss the trolley dilemma in the context of governing autonomous vehicles and sketch out an application of Jewish ethics in a case where we are asking Artificial Intelligence to make life and death decisions. Our novel contribution is two-fold; first, we bring a religious approach to the discussion of the ethics of Artificial Intelligence which has hitherto been dominated by secular Western philosophies; second, we raise the idea that artificial entities who are trained through machine learning can be ethically trained in much the same way that human are—through reading and reflecting on core religious texts. This is both a way of ensuring the ethical regulation of artificial intelligence, but also promotes other core values of regulation, such as democratic engagement and user choice.

No abstract

In the legal scholarship, the 'new governance' mode of governance advances an administrative arrangement where decision-making is shared amongst a range of actors, both public and private. The flexible, responsive, and collaborative governance orientation is intended to counter the ill effects of a coercive, top-down, state-centric, commandand-control approach to governance. Critics contend the new governance framework can displace the interests of local communities, disempower individuals, and dislodge basic human rights. The U.S. military has adopted such an adaptive approach in its own governance structure, which in this article is referred to as: the new governance "mentality." This mentality of governance was employed in the U.S.'s post-conflict reconstruction efforts in Iraq-efforts that were plagued by waste, inefficiency, and corruption. Governance scholars have yet to ask the question of what models of governance should apply in the post conflict situation where the environmental violence of war has poisoned waterscapes and degraded landscapes. Should an adaptive mode of new governance be applied in post conflict situations where public institutions are weak and beset by corruption? What is the role of the state and private actors when the war is over and the reconstruction period begins? In this article, we explore a dark side of the new governance framework through the case study of the Iraq war theatre 454 INDIANA JOURNAL OF GLOBAL LEGAL STUDIES 21:2 and examine how the transformed military culture shaped the 2003-2013 Coalition operations in Iraq and the reconstruction effort-in particular, the provision of safe, clean drinking water to local communities.

No abstract