Instrumental Robots

AbstractAdvances in artificial intelligence research allow us to build fairly sophisticated agents: robots and computer programs capable of acting and deciding on their own (in some sense). These systems raise questions about who is responsible when something goes wrong —when such systems harm or kill humans. In a recent paper, Sven Nyholm has suggested that, because current AI will likely possess what we might call “supervised agency”, the theory of responsibility for individual agency is the wrong place to look for an answer to the question of responsibilit y. Instead, or so argues Nyholm, because supervised agency is a form of collaborative agency—of acting together—the right place to look is the theory of collaborative responsibility—responsibility in cases of acting together. This paper concedes that current AI will possess supervised agency, but argues that it is nevertheless wrong to think of the relevant human-AI interactions as a form of collaborative agency and, hence, that responsibility in cases of collaborative agency is not the right place to look for the responsibility-grounding relation in human-AI interactions. It also sugges ts that the right place to look for this responsibility-grounding relation in human-AI interactions is the use of certain sorts of agents as instruments.
Source: Science and Engineering Ethics - Category: Medical Ethics Source Type: research