【设为首页
前往首页
以后地位: 主页 > 科技资讯 >

谁该为呆板人担任

工夫:2017-02-28 11:37泉源:作者: 点击:
智能手机,想想两个要害题目,社会将需求更多资源,也便是说,我们怎样分派执法责任,消费这台呆板人的公司,有责任补偿它们能够惹起的任何丧失的电子人,没须要用科幻小说里的处理方案
  

This month, the European Parliament voted in favour of a resolution to create a new ethical-legal framework for robots. The Commission does not have to follow the parliament’s recommendations, but if it refuses it will have to explain why. 欧洲议会(European Parliament)本月经过一项决定,其内容是树立针对呆板人的新的伦理-执法框架。欧盟委员会不用遵照前者的发起,但假如回绝,它必需表明缘由。 The basic idea is reasonable. Today, we spend increasing amounts of time in the infosphere. In this digital ocean, robots are the real natives: we scuba dive, they are like fish. Robots of all kinds will multiply and proliferate, making the infosphere even more their own element. Add artificial intelligence, smartphones, cloud computing, big data, machine learning and the internet of things, and it becomes obvious that there is no time to waste. 根本理念是公道的。当今,我们在信息空间破费的工夫日益增多。在这个数字陆地里,呆板人才是真正的当地人:我们戴着水肺潜水,而它们就像鱼一样。林林总总的呆板人将会敏捷添加和繁衍,使信息空间在更大水平上成为它们瓮中之鳖的情况。再加上人工智能、智能手机、云盘算、大数据、呆板学习和物联网,显然没偶然间可以糜费了。

We are laying down foundations for the mature information societies of the near future, so we need new ethical frameworks to determine which forms of artificial agency we are happy to see flourishing in them. Against this background, the EU’s initiative provokes mixed feelings: excitement at the aspiration but disappointment at the implementation. There is too much fantasy and too little realism. 我们正在为不久的未来的成熟信息社会奠基根底,因而我们需求新的伦理框架来确定:我们乐于看到什么方式的人工能动性在那样的社会绽放?在如许的配景下,欧盟的建议让人喜忧各半:既有对志向的冲动,也有对施行的绝望。梦想太多,理想太少。 Consider two key issues: jobs and responsibilities. Robots replace human workers. Retraining unemployed people was never easy, but it is more challenging now that technological disruption is spreading so rapidly, widely and unpredictably. There will be many new forms of employment in other corners of the infosphere — think of how many people have opened virtual shops on eBay. But new and different skills will be needed. More education and a universal basic income may mitigate the impact of robotics on the labour market. 想想两个要害题目:任务岗亭和责任。呆板人代替人类休息者。重新培训赋闲职员历来都不是一件容易的事变,而随着科技形成的扰乱云云敏捷伸张、影响普遍和不行预测,这变得更具应战性。在信息空间的其他角落将呈现很多新的失业方式——想想有几多人在eBay上开了假造市肆。但人们将需求新的、差别的技艺。添加教诲时机和实验全民根本支出大概可以缓解呆板人对休息市场的影响。 Society will need more resources. Unfortunately, robots do not pay taxes. And more profitable companies are unlikely to pay enough extra taxes to compensate for the loss of revenues. So robots cause a higher demand for taxpayers’ money and a lower supply of it. 社会将需求更多资源。遗憾的是,呆板人不交税。而比拟红利的企业不太能够交纳充足多的额定税款来赔偿财务支出的丧失。也便是说,呆板人带来对征税人资金的更高需求,却也带来更少的税收支出。 How can one get out of this tailspin? The report correctly identifies the problem. But its original recommendation of a robo tax on companies that employ robots — a proposal that did not survive into the final text approved the parliament — may not be feasible, for what counts as a robot? It may also work as a disincentive to innovation. 怎样解脱这种窘境?该陈诉准确地界定了这个困难。但其本来提出的方案(对运用呆板人的企业征收“呆板人税”;该提案未能进入议会经过的终极文本)大概并不行行,由于什么才算呆板人呢?这还能够障碍创新。 And where should we allocate legal responsibilities? If my robot breaks my neighbour’s window, who is responsible? The company who produced it, the shop who sold it, I the owner, or the robot itself — if it has become completely autonomous through a learning process, capable of intelligent action? The report suggests a “specific legal status” for more advanced robots, as “electronic persons responsible for making good any damage they may cause”, which has been approved in the final document. So companies may not pay a robo tax and may not even be liable for some kinds of robots. This is a mistake. 别的,我们怎样分派执法责任?假如我的呆板人冲破了我邻人的窗户,谁该为此担任?消费这台呆板人的公司、贩卖这台呆板人的市肆、我这个一切者、照旧呆板人本人——假如它经过学习进程,变得完全自主,可以做出智能举动?陈诉发起,比照较先辈的呆板人付与一种“特别的执法位置”,将它们视为“有责任补偿它们能够惹起的任何丧失的电子人”,这一点在终极的文件失掉承认。如许一来,企业大概无需交纳呆板人税,乃至能够无需对某些呆板人承当补偿责任。这是一个错误。 There is no need to adopt science fiction solutions to solve practical problems of legal liability. Jurisprudence already provides a solution. 没须要用科幻小说里的处理方案来处理执法责任归属的实践题目。法理学曾经提供了一个处理方案。 If robots become as good as human agents — think of the droids in Star Wars — we can adapt rules as old as Roman law, in which the owner of enslaved persons is responsible for any damage. As the Romans knew, attributing some kind of legal personality to robots (or slaves) would relieve those who should control them of their responsibilities. And how would rights be attributed? Do robots have the right to own data? Should they be “liberated”? 假如呆板人变得像人类举动人一样良好——想想《星球大战》(Star Wars)里的呆板人——那么我们可以自创罗马法如许的陈旧规矩。罗马法例定仆从的主人要对仆从形成的任何破坏担任。正如罗马人看到的,将某种执法品德付与呆板人(或许仆从)会让那些应该控制它们(他们)的人逃走责任。并且,权益又该怎样归属?呆板人有权益拥无数据吗?它们应该被“束缚”吗? It may be fun to speculate about such questions, but it is also distracting and irresponsible, given the pressing issues at hand. We are stuck in the wrong conceptual framework. The debate is not about robots but about us, and the kind of infosphere we want to create. We need less science fiction and more philosophy. 围绕这些题目停止猜想大概很风趣,但思索到以后面对的急迫题目,这也是让人专心和不担任任的。我们堕入了错误的观点框架。这场争辩与呆板人有关,而与我们有关,与我们想要创立什么样的信息空间有关。我们需求少一些科幻小说,多一些哲学。

------分开线----------------------------
引荐内容
热门内容