امکان‌سنجی اعطای شخصیت حقوقی به ربات‌های هوشمند با تکیه بر مصوبه اتحادیه اروپا (شخص الکترونیک - 2017)

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

استادیار گروه حقوق، دانشگاه پیام نور، ایران

چکیده

امکان ایجاد دستگاه‌ها و ماشین‌های با قابلیت تفکر و یادگیری باعث شده تا بسیاری از مسائل اخلاقی مطرح شود با این اطمینان که به انسان‌ها و دیگر موجودات و حتی خود آسیب نمی‌رسانند. رشد تکنولوژی در حوزه هوش مصنوعی و رباتیک به‌رغم محاسن بسیار، معایبی را به همراه دارد برای مثال اگر ربات هوشمندی به شخص یا مالی آسیب برساند مسئول آن چه‌کسی است؟ تولید‌کننده، کاربر، مالک یا خود ربات؟ تولیدکننده، ربات‌ها را با اطلاعات پیش‌فرض و محدود تولید می‌کند و به مصرف‌کننده می‌فروشد‌. این ربات‌ها به‌دلیل الگوریتم‌های خاصی که در آن تعبیه شده قادر به تطبیق با محیط و خودآموزی هستند بنابراین رفتار ربات وقتی از محیط تولید خارج شد، برای تولیدکننده و کاربر یا مالک قابل پیش‌بینی نیست چرا‌‌که ربات هوشمند به‌صورت مستقل و بدون نظارت انسانی تصمیم می‌گیرد. از‌این‌رو زیان‌دیده به‌سختی می‌تواند عیب ربات و انتساب آن به تولیدکننده‌، مالک یا کاربر را اثبات کند‌. برای رفع خلأ مسئولیت و حمایت از زیان‌دیده، اعطای شخصیت حقوقی به ربات از‌سوی اتحادیه اروپا پیشنهاد شده است. این مقاله درصدد پاسخ به این سؤال است که آیا امکان اعطای شخصیت حقوقی به ربات هوشمند وجود دارد؟ نتایجی که با روش توصیفی و تحلیلی به‌دست آمد نشان داد اعطای شخصیت حقوقی در حال حاضر به ربات‌های هوشمند با توجه به سطح خودمختاری آن به دلایل مختلف امکان‌پذیر نیست ولی درصورتی‌که ربات به سطحی از خودمختاری و ادراک و اراده کامل برسد مانعی برای اعطای شخصیت حقوقی وجود ندارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Feasibility Study of Granting Legal Personality to Smart Robots Based on European Union Resolution (Electronic Person -2017)

نویسنده [English]

  • mohsen vaseghi
Assistant Professor of Law, Payame Noor University, Iran
چکیده [English]

The possibility of creating devices and machines which have capabilities to think and learn that they lead to raise a lot of ethical issues as well as ensure that these machines do not harm humans and other creatures or even themselves. In spite of many advantages, the evolution of technology in the field of artificial intelligence and robotics have some disadvantages. One of the disadvantages is: Who is responsible if a smart robot injuries to a person or property? Producer, user, owner or a robot itself? The manufacturer produces the robots which include pre-assumptions and limited information then sales them to the users. These robots are able to adapt to the environment as well as self-study because of certain algorithms embedded in it. So the robot’s behavior is not predictable for the producer, user or the owner after it comes out of the production environment because the smart robot can decide independently or without human supervision. Therefore, the aggrieved person can hardly prove the fault of the robot as well as its attribution to the producer or the owner. In this connection, the issue of granting legal personality has been proposed by the European Union to address the responsibility gap as well as support of the aggrieved party. This paper tries to answer the question that granting legal personality to the smart robot is possible? We have concluded that now, granting legal personality to smart robots is impossible for different reasons through using analytical- descriptive research method but there will be feasible to grant the legal personality if the robot is autonomous as well as having a complete/legal will.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Robot
  • Autonomy
  • Smart
  • Legal Personality
  • Artificial Intelligence

مراجع

1. Albus, James (1984). "Robots and the Economy", The Futurist, Vol. 18, No. 6.
2. Asimov, Lsmc (1990). Robot Visions Publisher, Ace Isbn-10: 0451450647.
3. Beck, Susanne (2015). The Problem of Ascribing Legal Responsibility in the Case of Robotics, Springer-Verlag London.
4. Bertolini, Andrea (2016). "On Robots and Insurance", International Journal of Social Robotics 8.
5. Boden, M. A. (1977). Artificial Intelligence and Natural Man, New York, Basic Books..
6. Borges, Georg (2018). New Liability Concepts: the Potential of Insurance and Compensation Funds, Munster, 12t h.
7. Bostrom, Nick (2014). Superintelligence, Oxford, First Edition.
8. Coates, Joseph (1981). The Future of Law: a Diagnosis and Prescription, in James Dator and Clem Bezold (Editors), /udging the Future, Honolulu, HI, USA, University of Hawaii Social Science Research Institute.
9. Comandé, Giovanni (2018). Multilayered (Accountable) Liability for Artificial Intelligence, 4th Münster Colloquium on EU Law and the Digital Economy.
10. Florian, R˘azvan V. (2003). Autonomous Artificial Intelligent, Agents, Str. Saturn 24, 3400 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
11. Foot, Philippa (1972). "Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives", The Philosophical Review, Vol. 81, No. 3.
12. Frank van, Harmelen (2008). Foundations of Artificial Intelligence, First Edition, Elsevier.
13. Gerstner, Maruerite E. (1993). "Liability Issues with Artificial Intelligence Software", Santa Clara Law Review ,Vol. 33, N0. 1.
14. Gifford, Daniel J. (2007). Law and Technology: Interactions and Relationships, Minn. J. L. Sci. and Tech.
15. Higgins, Mike (1986). The Future of Personal Robots, The Futurist.
16. Hobbes, Thomas (1963). Leviathan, in John Somerville and Ronald Santoni (Editors), Social and Political Philosophy, Garden City, New York, Doubleday,
17.http://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView.do?lang=ENG&hseq=3915.1397/5/13.
18.http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getdoc.do?pubref=-//ep//nonsgml+comparl+pe-582.443+01+doc+pdf+v0//en&language=en
19. https://gizmodo.com/experts-sign-open-letter-slamming-europe-s-proposal-to-
20. https://rc.majlis.ir/fa/news/show/1126480.
21. https://theconversation.com/robot-rights-at-what-point-should-an-intelligent-machine-be-considered-a-person-72410.1397/9/13.
22. https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/opinion/the-eu-is-right-to-refuse-legal-personality-for-artificial-intelligence.1397/10/12.
23. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05154-5.1397/9/13.
24. Huttunen, Anniina and Jakke Kulovesi (2010). "Liberating Intelligent Machines with Financial Instruments", Nordic Journal of Commercial Law, No. 2.
25. Izzo, Umberto (2013). Introduction: A Law and Technology Approach to the Law of Biobanking, Springer.
26. Jarvis, Ray (2008). "Intelligent Robotics: Past, Present and Future", International Journal of Computer Science and Applications, Vol. 5, No. 3.
27. Jasanoff, S. (1995). Science at the Bar. Law, Science, and Technology in America, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
28. Kemeny, J. G. (1979). Man and the Computer, New York, Publisher, Charles Scribners Sons.
29. LaChat, Michael R. (1986). "Artificial Intelligence and Ethics: An Exercise in the Moral Imagination", AI Magazine, Vol. 7, No. 2 , (@ AAAI),.
30. Magnani, Lorenzo (2013). Philosophy and Theory of Artificial Intelligence, Springer.
31. McGuire, Brian (2006). The History of Artificial Intelligence, University of Washington.
32. Mindaugas, Naučius (2018). "Should Fully Autonomous Artificial Intelligence Systems be Granted Legal Capacity?", Teisės Apžvalga Law Review. No.1 (17), Michigan State International Law Review, Vol. 23.
33. Mittelstadt, Brent Daniel (2016). "The Ethics of Algorithms: Mapping the Debate", Big Data and Society, Vol. 3 (2), https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716679679 July–December.
34. Morris, Clarence (1971). The Justification of the Law, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press.
35. Nevejans, Nathalie (2016). "European Civil Law Rules in Robotics", Directorate-General for Internal Policies.
36. Pavaloiu, Alice and Utku Kose (2017). "Ethical Artificial Intelligence", An Open Question Journal of Multidisciplinary Developments, 2 (2).
37. Pennington, Nancy and Reid Hastie (1993). "The Story Model for Juror Decision Making", In R. Hastie (ed) Inside the Juror: The Psychology of Juror Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
38. Pfeifer, R. and C. Scheier (1999). Understanding Intelligence, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39. Russell, Stuart J. and Peter Norvig (2003). Artificial Intelligence a Modern Approach, Third Edition, Pearson.
40. Sarkar, P. R. (1984). Neo-Humanism: The Liberation of Intellect, Ananda Nagar, India, Ananda Press.
41. Schrijver, Steven De (2018). "The Future is Now: Legal Consequences of Electronic Personality for Autonomous Robots", Astrea, January.
42. Shirkin, Joel (1983). "The Expert System: the Practical Face of Al", Technology Review, November- December.
43. Sprevak, Mark (2017). "Ethics or Aetiricial Intellicence Course guide", V1.o¢ for Phil1o167 Ethics and Information Technology.
44. Steels, L. (1995). "The Artificial Life Roots of Artificial Intelligence", In Artificial Life: An Overview, ed. C. G. Langton, 75–110, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
45. Stone, Christopher D. (1974). Should Trees Have Standing: Towards Legal Rights for Natural Objects, Los Altos, CA, USA, William A. Kaufman.
46. Thomson, Judith Jarvis (1976). Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem, Crítica.
47. Wesizenbaum, J. (1976). Computer Power and Human Reason, From Judgment to Calculation, W. H. Freeman and Company.
48. Wilzig, Sam N. Lehman (1981). "Frankenstein Unbound: Towards a Legal Definition of Artificial Intelligence", Futures, 73 (6).
49.www.ucd.ie/philosop/documents/2.%20definitions%20of%20some%20key%20terms.htm1397/3/13.

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار