Menu
The hot topics among academics and IT researchers include artificial intelligence and challenges linked to it. The goal of the researchers is to gather and repurpose the previously existing, constantly expanding information via various social media platforms. The abundance of data has increased study into its processing, analysis, and application. The emphasis is on using computers to handle data more effectively because they are far faster and better at it than people. This increasing enthusiasm for research, academia, business, and open source has produced innovations and advancements that have the potential to bring about significant change. However, the prospect of building intelligent robots presents a few moral questions regarding the machines’ own moral standing as well as how to make sure they don’t damage people or other morally significant entities. As a result, in contemporary culture, ethics and law are closely connected, and many legal judgments are based on how various ethical concerns are interpreted. These problems take on a new dimension thanks to artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence-based systems are evolving toward more autonomy in terms of the complexity of the tasks they can do, the potential influence they may have on the world, and the decreasing capacity of humans to comprehend, forecast, and manage their operation. Most people don’t realize how automated these systems really are; they may learn from their own mistakes and take actions that go beyond what their designers had in mind. There are several moral and legal issues with this. A feeble attempt has been made to critically assess the ethical concerns surrounding artificial intelligence and thinking machines throughout the world in this article.
• Arkhipov, V., Naumov, V. On Certain Issues Regarding the Theoretical Grounds for Developing Legislation on Robotics: Aspects of Will and Legal Personality // Zakon. 2017, No. 5, p. 167.
• Arkhipov, V., Naumov, V. Op. cit., p. 164.
• Asaro P. The Liability Problem for Autonomous Artificial Agents // AAAI Symposium on Ethical and Moral Considerations in Non-Human Agents, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. March 21–23, 2016, p. 191.
• Asaro P. The Liability Problem for Autonomous Artificial Agents, p. 193.
• Asaro P., “From Mechanisms of Adaptation to Intelligence Amplifiers: The Philosophy of W. Ross Ashby,” in Wheeler M., Husbands P., and Holland O. (eds.) The Mechanical Mind in History, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: pp. 149–184
• Asimov, Isaac. 1942. “Runaround.” Astounding Science-Fiction, March, 94–103.
• Bostrom, Nick, and Milan M. Ćirković, eds. 2008. Global Catastrophic Risks, New York: Oxford University Press. Chalmers, David John. 1996.
• Bostrom, Nick. 2002. “Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards.” Journal of Evolution and Technology 9. http://www.jetpress.org/volume9/risks.html.
• Brożek B., Jakubiec M. On the Legal Responsibility of Autonomous Machines // Artificial Intelligence Law. 2017, No. 25(3), pp. 293–304.
• D. Edmonds, Would You Kill the Fat Man? The Trolley Problem and What Your Answer Tells Us About Right and Wrong, Princeton University Press,2013.
• Goertzel, Ben, and Cassio Pennachin, eds. 2007. Artificial General Intelligence. Cognitive Technologies. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-68677-4.
• Good, Irving John. 1965. “Speculations Concerning the First Ultraintelligent Machine.” In Advances in Computers, edited by Franz L. Alt and Morris Rubinoff, 31–88. Vol. 6. New York: Academic Press.doi:10.1016/S0065-2458(08)60418-0.
• Hage J. Theoretical Foundations for the Responsibility of Autonomous Agents // Artificial Intelligence Law. 2017, No. 25(3), pp. 255–271.
• Hastie, Trevor, Robert Tibshirani, and Jerome Friedman. 2001. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction. 1st ed. Springer Series in Statistics. New York: Springer.
• Hirschfeld, Lawrence A., and Susan A. Gelman, eds. 1994. Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Hofstadter, Douglas R. 2006. “Trying to Muse Rationally about the Singularity Scenario.” Talk given at the Singularity Summit 2006, Stanford,
• Howard, Philip K. 1994. The Death of Common Sense: How Law is Suffocating America.New York: Random House.
• In countries that use the Anglo-Saxon legal system, the European Union and some Middle Eastern countries. This kind of liability also exists in certain former Soviet countries: Georgia, Kazakhstan, Moldova and Ukraine. It does not exist in Russia, although it is under discussion.
• Kamm, Frances M. 2007. Intricate Ethics: Rights, Responsibilities, and Permissible Harm. Oxford Ethics Series. New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195189698.001. 0001.
• Khanna V.S. Corporate Criminal Liability: What Purpose Does It Serve? // Harvard Law Review. 1996, No. 109, pp. 1477–1534.
• Kurzweil, Ray. 2005. The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. New York: Viking.
• McDermott, Drew. 1976. “Artificial Intelligence Meets Natural Stupidity.” SIGART Newsletter (57): 4–9. doi:10.1145/1045339.1045340.
• Sandberg, Anders. 1999. “The Physics of Information Processing Superobjects: Daily Life Among the Jupiter Brains.” Journal of Evolution and Technology http://www.jetpress.org/volume5/ Brains2.pdf.
• U. Pagallo, The Laws of Robots. Crimes, Contracts, and Torts. Springer, 2013, p. 36.
• Vinge, Vernor. 1993. “The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era.” In Vision-21: Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in the Era of Cyberspace, 11–22. NASA Conference Publication 10129. NASA Lewis Research Center. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/ nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19940022855_1994022855.pdf
• Wallach, Wendell, and Colin Allen. 2009. Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong.New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195374049.001.0001.
• Warren, Mary Anne. 1997. Moral Status: Obligations to Persons and Other Living Things.Issues in Biomedical Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198250401.001.0001.
• Winkler A. We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights. Liverlight, 2018. See a description here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/05/books/review/adam-winkler-we-the-corporations.html
Desh Bhagat University,
Off to NH-44, Amloh Road, Mandi Gobindgarh,
District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab- 147301, India