Apples, oranges, robots: four misunderstandings in today's debate on the legal status of AI systems

Abstract

<jats:p>Scholars have increasingly discussed the legal status(es) of robots and artificial intelligence (AI) systems over the past three decades; however, the 2017 resolution of the EU parliament on the ‘electronic personhood’ of AI robots has reignited and even made current debate ideological. Against this background, the aim of the paper is twofold. First, the intent is to show how often today's discussion on the legal status(es) of AI systems leads to different kinds of misunderstanding that regard both the legal personhood of AI robots and their status as accountable agents establishing rights and obligations in contracts and business law. Second, the paper claims that whether or not the legal status of AI systems as accountable agents in civil––as opposed to criminal––law may make sense is an empirical issue, which should not be ‘politicized’. Rather, a pragmatic approach seems preferable, as shown by methods of competitive federalism and legal experimentation. In the light of the classical distinction between primary rules and secondary rules of the law, examples of competitive federalism and legal experimentation aim to show how the secondary rules of the law can help us understanding what kind of primary rules we may wish for our AI robots.</jats:p> <jats:p>This article is part of the theme issue ‘Governing artificial intelligence: ethical, legal, and technical opportunities and challenges’.</jats:p>

Governing artificial intelligence: ethical, legal and technical opportunities and challenges

“…A growing body of the literature covers questions of AI and ethical frameworks [1,[6][7][8][9][10], laws [3,[11][12][13][14] to govern the impact of AI and robotics [15], technical approaches like algorithmic impact assessments [16][17][18], and building trustworthiness through system validation [19]. These three guiding forces in AI governance (law, ethics and technology) can be complementary [ However, the debate on when which approach (or combination of approaches) is most relevant is unresolved, as Nemitz and Pagallo expertly highlight in this issue [13,17].…”

“…However, the debate on when which approach (or combination of approaches) is most relevant is unresolved, as Nemitz and Pagallo expertly highlight in this issue [13,17].…”

“…Even if those questions are answered, the issue of the extent to which our existing ethical and regulatory frameworks sufficiently cover the impact of these technologies remains. Pagallo, for instance, highlights this conundrum by analysing the debate on the legal status of embodied AI (robots) in the EU [13]. Veale et al [3] argue here that European data protection provides robust principles but that 'many socio-technical challenges presented by machine learning and algorithmic systems more broadly are not wholly dealt with using the provisions in regulations such as the General Data Protection Regulation, which are the result of a slow evolution in definitions and concerns' (p. 17).…”

Umjetna inteligencija kao segment strategije ili značenje (uloga) umjetne inteligencije u strategijskom planiranju

“…What would happen, for example if an AI program chosen to predict successful investments and pick up on market trends made a wrong evaluation that led to a lack of capital increase and hence, to the fraudulent bankruptcy of the corporation? As the intention requirement of fraud is missing, humans could only be held responsible for the lesser crime of bankruptcy triggered by the robot's evaluation (Pagallo, 2017).…”

Ответственность Контролирующих Лиц За Работу Искусственного Интеллекта Или Снятия Электронного Покрова

“…Злоупотреблять ограниченной ответственности ИИ технологий является основанием привлечение к ответственности соответствующих физических лицоператоров, владельцев и других управляющих. Данную проникающую ответственность можно назвать метафорически -«снятие электронного покрова» (piercing the electronic veil) [4].…”