机器性能与人为失误:我们该如何规范自动机器?

Horst Eidenmueller
{"title":"机器性能与人为失误:我们该如何规范自动机器?","authors":"Horst Eidenmueller","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3414602","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Machines powered by artificial intelligence (AI) are on the rise. In many use cases, their performance today already exceeds human capabilities. In this essay, I explore fundamental regulatory issues related to such “autonomous machines”. I adopt an analytical perspective that highlights the importance of what I call the “deep normative structure” of a particular society for crucial policy choices with respect to autonomous machines. I make two principal claims. First, the jargon of welfare economics appears well-suited to analyse the chances and risks of innovative new technologies, and it is also reflected in legal doctrine on risk, responsibility and regulation. A pure welfarist conception of “the good” will tend to move a society into a direction in which autonomous systems eventually will take a super-prominent role. However, such a conception assumes more than the welfarist calculus can yield, and it also ignores the categorical difference between machines and humans characteristic of Western legal systems. Second, taking the “deep normative structure” of Western legal systems seriously leads to policy conclusions regarding the regulation of autonomous machines that emphasize this categorical difference. Such a humanistic approach acknowledges human weaknesses and failures and protects humans, and it is characterized by fundamental human rights and by the desire to achieve some level of distributive justice. Welfaristic pursuits are constrained by these humanistic features, and the severity of these constraints differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I illustrate my argument with legal applications taken from various issues in the field of contract and tort.","PeriodicalId":225744,"journal":{"name":"Nature & Society eJournal","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Machine Performance and Human Failure: How Shall We Regulate Autonomous Machines?\",\"authors\":\"Horst Eidenmueller\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3414602\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Machines powered by artificial intelligence (AI) are on the rise. In many use cases, their performance today already exceeds human capabilities. In this essay, I explore fundamental regulatory issues related to such “autonomous machines”. I adopt an analytical perspective that highlights the importance of what I call the “deep normative structure” of a particular society for crucial policy choices with respect to autonomous machines. I make two principal claims. First, the jargon of welfare economics appears well-suited to analyse the chances and risks of innovative new technologies, and it is also reflected in legal doctrine on risk, responsibility and regulation. A pure welfarist conception of “the good” will tend to move a society into a direction in which autonomous systems eventually will take a super-prominent role. However, such a conception assumes more than the welfarist calculus can yield, and it also ignores the categorical difference between machines and humans characteristic of Western legal systems. Second, taking the “deep normative structure” of Western legal systems seriously leads to policy conclusions regarding the regulation of autonomous machines that emphasize this categorical difference. Such a humanistic approach acknowledges human weaknesses and failures and protects humans, and it is characterized by fundamental human rights and by the desire to achieve some level of distributive justice. Welfaristic pursuits are constrained by these humanistic features, and the severity of these constraints differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I illustrate my argument with legal applications taken from various issues in the field of contract and tort.\",\"PeriodicalId\":225744,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nature & Society eJournal\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nature & Society eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3414602\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature & Society eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3414602","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

人工智能(AI)驱动的机器正在崛起。在许多用例中,它们的性能已经超过了人类的能力。在这篇文章中,我探讨了与这种“自主机器”相关的基本监管问题。我采用了一种分析的观点,强调了一个特定社会的“深层规范结构”对于自主机器方面的关键政策选择的重要性。我有两个主要主张。首先,福利经济学的术语似乎非常适合分析创新新技术的机会和风险,它也反映在关于风险、责任和监管的法律原则中。一个纯粹的福利主义的“善”概念将倾向于把一个社会推向一个自治系统最终将发挥超级突出作用的方向。然而,这种概念的假设超出了福利主义者的计算所能产生的范围,而且它还忽略了西方法律体系中机器和人类之间的绝对差异。其次,认真对待西方法律体系的“深层规范结构”会导致关于自主机器监管的政策结论,这些结论强调了这种绝对差异。这种人道主义做法承认人的弱点和失败并保护人,其特点是基本人权和实现某种程度的分配正义的愿望。福利主义的追求受到这些人文特征的约束,而这些约束的严重程度因司法管辖区而异。我从合同和侵权领域的各种问题中采取法律应用来说明我的论点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Machine Performance and Human Failure: How Shall We Regulate Autonomous Machines?
Machines powered by artificial intelligence (AI) are on the rise. In many use cases, their performance today already exceeds human capabilities. In this essay, I explore fundamental regulatory issues related to such “autonomous machines”. I adopt an analytical perspective that highlights the importance of what I call the “deep normative structure” of a particular society for crucial policy choices with respect to autonomous machines. I make two principal claims. First, the jargon of welfare economics appears well-suited to analyse the chances and risks of innovative new technologies, and it is also reflected in legal doctrine on risk, responsibility and regulation. A pure welfarist conception of “the good” will tend to move a society into a direction in which autonomous systems eventually will take a super-prominent role. However, such a conception assumes more than the welfarist calculus can yield, and it also ignores the categorical difference between machines and humans characteristic of Western legal systems. Second, taking the “deep normative structure” of Western legal systems seriously leads to policy conclusions regarding the regulation of autonomous machines that emphasize this categorical difference. Such a humanistic approach acknowledges human weaknesses and failures and protects humans, and it is characterized by fundamental human rights and by the desire to achieve some level of distributive justice. Welfaristic pursuits are constrained by these humanistic features, and the severity of these constraints differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I illustrate my argument with legal applications taken from various issues in the field of contract and tort.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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