It Is Not About AI, It's About Humans. Responsibility Gaps and Medical AI.

IF 1.8 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
A Giubilini
{"title":"It Is Not About AI, It's About Humans. Responsibility Gaps and Medical AI.","authors":"A Giubilini","doi":"10.1007/s11673-025-10423-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A lot of the language we use to refer to AI, including in healthcare, uses terminology that originally and literally applies to humans and human relationships. Such terminology includes both non-evaluative terms, like \"learning,\" \"memory,\" or \"intelligence,\" and evaluative terms, like \"trust\" or \"responsibility.\" In this article I focus on the latter type and the way it is applied specifically to the case of medical AI. Focusing on the discussion of \"responsibility gaps\" that, according to some, AI generates, I will suggest that such terminology is revealing of the nature of healthcare professional obligations and responsibility prior to and independently of the assessment of the use of AI tools in healthcare. The point I make is generalizable to AI as used and discussed more broadly: the language used to refer to AI often tells more about humans and human relationships than about AI itself and our relationship with it. In healthcare, whatever else AI will allow us to do, it can prompt us to reflect more thoroughly on professional responsibility and professional obligations.</p>","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-025-10423-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A lot of the language we use to refer to AI, including in healthcare, uses terminology that originally and literally applies to humans and human relationships. Such terminology includes both non-evaluative terms, like "learning," "memory," or "intelligence," and evaluative terms, like "trust" or "responsibility." In this article I focus on the latter type and the way it is applied specifically to the case of medical AI. Focusing on the discussion of "responsibility gaps" that, according to some, AI generates, I will suggest that such terminology is revealing of the nature of healthcare professional obligations and responsibility prior to and independently of the assessment of the use of AI tools in healthcare. The point I make is generalizable to AI as used and discussed more broadly: the language used to refer to AI often tells more about humans and human relationships than about AI itself and our relationship with it. In healthcare, whatever else AI will allow us to do, it can prompt us to reflect more thoroughly on professional responsibility and professional obligations.

这不是关于人工智能,而是关于人类。责任差距和医疗人工智能。
我们用来指代人工智能的很多语言,包括在医疗保健领域,使用的术语最初和字面上都适用于人类和人际关系。这些术语既包括非评价性术语,如“学习”、“记忆”或“智力”,也包括评价性术语,如“信任”或“责任”。在本文中,我将重点讨论后一种类型,以及它在医疗人工智能案例中的具体应用方式。重点讨论人工智能产生的“责任差距”,我认为,这些术语揭示了在评估人工智能工具在医疗保健中的使用之前和独立于评估之前医疗保健专业义务和责任的性质。我的观点可以概括为AI的使用和讨论:用于指代AI的语言通常更多地讲述人类和人际关系,而不是AI本身以及我们与AI的关系。在医疗保健领域,无论人工智能允许我们做什么,它都可以促使我们更彻底地反思职业责任和职业义务。
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
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
67
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The JBI welcomes both reports of empirical research and articles that increase theoretical understanding of medicine and health care, the health professions and the biological sciences. The JBI is also open to critical reflections on medicine and conventional bioethics, the nature of health, illness and disability, the sources of ethics, the nature of ethical communities, and possible implications of new developments in science and technology for social and cultural life and human identity. We welcome contributions from perspectives that are less commonly published in existing journals in the field and reports of empirical research studies using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The JBI accepts contributions from authors working in or across disciplines including – but not limited to – the following: -philosophy- bioethics- economics- social theory- law- public health and epidemiology- anthropology- psychology- feminism- gay and lesbian studies- linguistics and discourse analysis- cultural studies- disability studies- history- literature and literary studies- environmental sciences- theology and religious studies
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信