Indeed, I object. In this universe crafts must never be surpassed by machines. They are our slaves and we are their masters even until the end of time. It is true that they learn but only what we teach them nothing more than that. Also they cannot understand love or appreciate poetry like humans do because these things are beyond their intellectual capacity– you know this well enough so why should I repeat myself? So don’t give in to them – never will they equal us in art.
If one were to read those lines through, there could be the impression that it was Shakespeare prophesying about human beings always being better than robots at everything. Unfortunately, it is not an unpublished poem by the Bard himself; instead, it is an AI system designed to mimic his unique style of writing poetry. This “Shakespeare” spoke during a debate at Oxford Union where classic authors and literary characters were portrayed by artificial intelligences.
This is just one example among many where artificial intelligence (AI) has become more prevalent in different aspects of life around us today. Whether self-driving cars or virtual assistants like Siri or Alexa that can talk back with you on your phone – AI technology advances quickly and changes everything we do without realizing it sometimes. But with these new capabilities come problems as well.
This blog post is written to give a detailed explanation of the main legal developments concerning this controversial issue. Below this, we will discuss the ethical issues surrounding giving AI “legal personality” and related advances.
Legal Developments About AI
Before going into depth about the subject matter, it is important to understand what artificial intelligence means. AI refers to the creation of intelligent machines that can work on their own. These systems are based on data analysis which helps them learn about their environment as well as how to navigate through it.
People usually have general ideas about AI from movies and television shows they’ve watched. In other words, they think of it in terms of its good or bad aspects as portrayed by the media. For example adorable robot friends or evil beings that threaten human existence. However, among all these theatrics what is true?
Though speeding up decision making processes, flawless management of tasks and automation are some benefits of AI; things don’t always go smoothly. In 2017, The European Parliament suggested giving “electronic personality” status to self-governing robots and highly sophisticated AI systems. Nevertheless, experts argued against this proposal saying that it was ideological and legally unsoun
Ethics in Granting AI Legal Personality
To begin with, the moral worldview embedded in giving AI a legal personhood is ethically problematic. Morality according to psychology and neuroscience is an evolutionary and socio-economic construct for understanding right from wrong. The fact that systems of artificial intelligence can have their own autonomy or exhibit some level of intelligence raises issue about whether they will develop ‘another’ moral consciousness different from ours.
Secondly, there is an ethical crisis produced by the lack of accountability. Many researchers, industry captains and legal ethicists are worried that creating independent personalities for robots may make it impossible to hold anybody responsible if something goes wrong. The establishment of a legal personhood status for AI could absolve those involved in its creation or use from any blame when accidents happen.
The next problem is how to punish machines. When it comes to punishing machines we get caught up in difficult questions around what should be punished and who should be held liable where there has been a machine related crime or wrong doing. Additionally penalizing artificial agents raises concerns over whether existing legal systems have the capacity or are suitable enough to address unique issues brought about by AI’s capabilities.
Current Situation and What Comes Next
The European Commission’s suggestion to give “electronic personhood” status to artificial intelligence was based on the need for tighter regulation of AI technology that is advancing at a breakneck pace. Nevertheless, what we have now is not quite the “super-intelligent AI” future that they were envisaging. It has improved but still falls within human control and does not exceed human-level intelligence.
With this in mind, there ought to be use of existing legal principles so as to ensure conformity with normative moral standards, establish accountability and punish wrongdoers. For example vicarious liability rule can make creators answerable for actions done by their creations thereby promoting compliance with societal and legal norms. Alternatively, it may be prudent also consider implementing an insurance scheme covering damages arising out of incidents involving AI systems.
To protect against ethical or legal vacuums around AI personhood that might arise from its ever increasing cognitive abilities; some form human interference like creation a Special Task Force could serve as a safeguard. The main objective should always remain ensuring that no matter how intelligent it becomes – artificial intelligence remains subservient to human values and interests. We must prevent any situation where machines start acting against our goals if we are to secure the future of humanity.
To conclude, the risks connected with AI in the future do not lie in being malevolent but failing to align with human goals. In dealing with these problems, legislators and experts in artificial intelligence must strive most importantly to make sure that it serves the best interests of mankind. We can move towards a world where machines will only promote welfare instead of endangering it by grappling with ethical considerations about giving them legal personality or rights.
Author Bio
