Responsibility Gaps and Technology: Old Wine in New Bottles?

IF 0.7 2区 哲学 Q4 ETHICS
Ann‐Katrien Oimann, Fabio Tollon
{"title":"Responsibility Gaps and Technology: Old Wine in New Bottles?","authors":"Ann‐Katrien Oimann, Fabio Tollon","doi":"10.1111/japp.12763","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent work in philosophy of technology has come to bear on the question of responsibility gaps. Some authors argue that the increase in the autonomous capabilities of decision‐making systems makes it impossible to properly attribute responsibility for AI‐based outcomes. In this article we argue that one important, and often neglected, feature of recent debates on responsibility gaps is how this debate maps on to old debates in responsibility theory. More specifically, we suggest that one of the key questions that is <jats:italic>still</jats:italic> at issue is the <jats:italic>significance</jats:italic> of the reactive attitudes, and how these ought to feature in our theorizing about responsibility. We will therefore provide a new descriptive categorization of different perspectives with respect to responsibility gaps. Such reflection can provide analytical clarity about what is at stake between the various interlocutors in this debate. The main upshot of our account is the articulation of a way to frame this ‘new’ debate by drawing on the rich intellectual history of ‘old’ concepts. By regarding the question of responsibility gaps as being concerned with questions of metaphysical priority, we see that the problem of these gaps lies not in any advanced technology, but rather in how we think about responsibility.","PeriodicalId":47057,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12763","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent work in philosophy of technology has come to bear on the question of responsibility gaps. Some authors argue that the increase in the autonomous capabilities of decision‐making systems makes it impossible to properly attribute responsibility for AI‐based outcomes. In this article we argue that one important, and often neglected, feature of recent debates on responsibility gaps is how this debate maps on to old debates in responsibility theory. More specifically, we suggest that one of the key questions that is still at issue is the significance of the reactive attitudes, and how these ought to feature in our theorizing about responsibility. We will therefore provide a new descriptive categorization of different perspectives with respect to responsibility gaps. Such reflection can provide analytical clarity about what is at stake between the various interlocutors in this debate. The main upshot of our account is the articulation of a way to frame this ‘new’ debate by drawing on the rich intellectual history of ‘old’ concepts. By regarding the question of responsibility gaps as being concerned with questions of metaphysical priority, we see that the problem of these gaps lies not in any advanced technology, but rather in how we think about responsibility.
责任差距与技术:新瓶装旧酒?
最近的技术哲学研究对责任差距问题产生了影响。一些作者认为,随着决策系统自主能力的增强,我们已无法对基于人工智能的结果正确地归咎责任。在这篇文章中,我们认为最近关于责任差距的争论有一个重要的、但往往被忽视的特点,那就是这场争论是如何映射到责任理论中的旧争论的。更具体地说,我们认为其中一个仍然存在争议的关键问题是被动态度的重要性,以及这些态度在我们的责任理论中应该如何体现。因此,我们将对有关责任差距的不同观点进行新的描述性分类。这种反思可以让我们分析清楚这场辩论中不同对话者之间的利害关系。我们的论述的主要成果是,通过借鉴 "旧 "概念的丰富思想史,阐明了如何构建这场 "新 "辩论的框架。通过将责任差距问题视为形而上学优先权问题,我们看到这些差距的问题不在于任何先进技术,而在于我们如何看待责任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
71
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信