人工智能批判的話語悖論

IF 0.1 4区 哲学 Q4 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Fen Lin
{"title":"人工智能批判的話語悖論","authors":"Fen Lin","doi":"10.24112/ijccpm.171683","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract in English only.In the dominant discourse of the \"human–machine relationship,\" people and machines are the subjects, with a mutually shaping influence. However, this framework neglects the crux of the current critical analysis of AI. It reduces the problems with new technology to the relationship between people and machines, ignoring the re-shaping of the relationship between \"people and people\" in the era of new technology. This simplification may mislead policy and legal regulations for new technologies. Why would a robot killing cause more panic than a murder committed by a human? Why is a robot's misdiagnosis more troubling than a doctor's? Why do patients assume that machines make more accurate diagnoses than doctors? When a medical accident occurs, who is responsible for the mistakes of an intelligent medical system? In the framework of traditional professionalism, the relationship between doctors and patients, whether trusted or not, is based on the premise that doctors have specialized knowledge that patients do not possess. Therefore, the authority of a doctor is the authority of knowledge. In the age of intelligence, do machines provide information or knowledge? Can this strengthen or weaken the authority of doctors? It is likely that in the age of intelligence, the professionalism, authority and trustworthiness of doctors require a new knowledge base. Therefore, the de-skilling of doctors is not an issue of individual doctors, but demands an update of the knowledge of the entire industry. Recognizing this, policy makers must not focus solely on the use of machines, but take a wider perspective, considering how to promote the development of doctors and coordinate the relationship between doctors with different levels of knowledge development. We often ask, \"In the era of intelligence, what defines a human?\" This philosophical thinking should be directed toward not only the difference between machines and people as individuals, but also how the relationship between human beings, i.e., the social nature of humans, evolves in different technological environments. In short, this commentary stresses that a \"good\" machine or an \"evil\" machine—beyond the sci-fi romance of such discourse—reflects the evolution of the relationships between people. In today's smart age, the critical issue is not the relationship between people and machines. It is how people adjust their relationships with other people as machines become necessary tools in life. In the era of intelligence, therefore, our legislation, policy and ethical discussion should resume their focus on evolutionary relationships between people.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 41 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.","PeriodicalId":41284,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Chinese & Comparative Philosophy of Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Chinese & Comparative Philosophy of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24112/ijccpm.171683","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract in English only.In the dominant discourse of the "human–machine relationship," people and machines are the subjects, with a mutually shaping influence. However, this framework neglects the crux of the current critical analysis of AI. It reduces the problems with new technology to the relationship between people and machines, ignoring the re-shaping of the relationship between "people and people" in the era of new technology. This simplification may mislead policy and legal regulations for new technologies. Why would a robot killing cause more panic than a murder committed by a human? Why is a robot's misdiagnosis more troubling than a doctor's? Why do patients assume that machines make more accurate diagnoses than doctors? When a medical accident occurs, who is responsible for the mistakes of an intelligent medical system? In the framework of traditional professionalism, the relationship between doctors and patients, whether trusted or not, is based on the premise that doctors have specialized knowledge that patients do not possess. Therefore, the authority of a doctor is the authority of knowledge. In the age of intelligence, do machines provide information or knowledge? Can this strengthen or weaken the authority of doctors? It is likely that in the age of intelligence, the professionalism, authority and trustworthiness of doctors require a new knowledge base. Therefore, the de-skilling of doctors is not an issue of individual doctors, but demands an update of the knowledge of the entire industry. Recognizing this, policy makers must not focus solely on the use of machines, but take a wider perspective, considering how to promote the development of doctors and coordinate the relationship between doctors with different levels of knowledge development. We often ask, "In the era of intelligence, what defines a human?" This philosophical thinking should be directed toward not only the difference between machines and people as individuals, but also how the relationship between human beings, i.e., the social nature of humans, evolves in different technological environments. In short, this commentary stresses that a "good" machine or an "evil" machine—beyond the sci-fi romance of such discourse—reflects the evolution of the relationships between people. In today's smart age, the critical issue is not the relationship between people and machines. It is how people adjust their relationships with other people as machines become necessary tools in life. In the era of intelligence, therefore, our legislation, policy and ethical discussion should resume their focus on evolutionary relationships between people.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 41 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.
人工智能批判的话语悖论
|中文文件文本;只有英文摘要。在“人机关系”的主导话语中,人和机器是主体,具有相互塑造的影响。然而,这个框架忽略了当前人工智能批判性分析的关键。它将新技术的问题归结为人与机器的关系,忽略了新技术时代对“人与人”关系的重新塑造。这种简化可能会误导新技术的政策和法律法规。为什么机器人杀人会比人类杀人引起更大的恐慌?为什么机器人的误诊比医生的更麻烦?为什么病人认为机器的诊断比医生更准确?当医疗事故发生时,谁来为智能医疗系统的失误负责?在传统的专业主义框架下,医患关系,无论信任与否,都是建立在医生拥有患者所不具备的专业知识的前提之上的。因此,医生的权威就是知识的权威。在智能时代,机器提供信息或知识吗?这会加强还是削弱医生的权威?在智能时代,医生的专业性、权威性和可信赖性很可能需要新的知识基础。因此,医生的去技能化不是医生个人的问题,而是需要整个行业的知识更新。认识到这一点,决策者不应只关注机器的使用,而应从更广阔的角度考虑如何促进医生的发展,协调不同知识发展水平的医生之间的关系。我们经常会问:“在智能时代,是什么定义了一个人?”这种哲学思考不仅应该指向机器和人作为个体的差异,而且应该指向人类之间的关系,即人类的社会本质,在不同的技术环境中如何演变。简而言之,这篇评论强调一台“好”机器或一台“坏”机器——超越了这种话语的科幻浪漫——反映了人与人之间关系的演变。在今天的智能时代,关键的问题不是人与机器之间的关系。它是当机器成为生活中必不可少的工具时,人们如何调整与他人的关系。因此,在智能时代,我们的立法、政策和伦理讨论应该重新关注人与人之间的进化关系。下载历史b|在迁移到这个平台之前,这篇文章在数字共享资源中已经被下载了41次。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
×
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