“In October 2016, the White House, the European Parliament, and the UK House of Commons each issued a report outlining their visions on how to prepare society for the widespread use of AI. In this article, we provide a comparative assessment of these three reports in order to facilitate the design of policies favourable to the development of a ‘good AI society’. To do so, we examine how each report addresses the following three topics:
(a) the development of a ‘good AI society’;
(b) the role and responsibility of the government, the private sector, and the research community (including academia) in pursuing such a development; and
(c) where the recommendations to support such a development may be in need of improvement.
Our analysis concludes that the reports address adequately various ethical, social, and economic topics, but come short of providing an overarching political vision and long-term strategy for the development of a ‘good AI society’. In order to contribute to fill this gap, in the conclusion we suggest a two-pronged approach.”
“Are cities ready for self-driving, artificially intelligent, vehicles and robotics? The urban marketplace is increasingly filled with products emblematic of “smart” cities, from widely discussed autonomous vehicles to smaller variations on the theme, such as robotics for delivery, security, and entertainment. Altogether, such urban robotics represent a new wave of technology in which digital sensors, networked devices, and their associated data stores are given the algorithmic, physical, and legal means to move in public space. As time goes on, the public is increasingly likely to encounter self-driving vehicles, robots, and drones on city streets, sidewalks, and in urban airspace. How should cities respond to these new and impending technologies?
Firms have technological, market, and financial interest in testing and deploying their products in public space, but the implications for cities span a broad array of intended and unintended consequences. Cities are natural sites of experimentation for firms interested in bringing these products to market, and the perception of economic opportunity associated with tech firms is leading city representatives to reclaim public spaces, transforming them into testbeds for product development. It is worth noting, however, that experimentation involves trial and error, and there are limitations to the ability of artificial intelligence to navigate the wide range of conditions and events that comprise the urban environment. Ultimately, the design of the environment may be as important to the success of urban robotics as the design of the hardware and software that comprise these products. These are matters that city officials care about; the design, function, and finance of urban built environments is generally the purview of local government. Additionally, artificial intelligence imbues devices with the purpose of replacing as well as augmenting the roles and responsibilities of persons, and this tension exists at the local level. Significant new questions in law, such as legal liability for the performance of artificially intelligent devices, are being addressed as autonomous vehicles and devices enter public rights-of-way. Lastly, these products generate rich data stores about the public, bringing market potential along with the coupled moral hazard of data monetization and loss of privacy, including surveillance. Which parties are positioned to benefit from this experimentation, and which will absorb the costs? In the face of these potentially widespread and enduring industrial and technological changes, how might cities act in the public interest?
The answers to these questions lie as much in the institutional arrangements designed to govern this new wave of technologies as it does in the intrinsic capabilities of these products. Anyone evaluating the existing policy environment for artificially intelligent devices today would find technological optimism as well as pessimism, conflicting perspectives of the public interest, and preemptive acts at the state and federal levels. In particular, preemption in current policy-making raises issues, because the consequences and cost of product design, including safety and surveillance as well as convenience and expense, play out at the local level. As city officials ask their residents to co-exist with robots and negotiate with firms over the transaction costs that accompany these products, they need the flexibility and funding necessary to adapt to market conditions and the authority to act as market makers. In the best of circumstances, federal agencies provide guidance and domain expertise, while states provide a supportive framework for cities to operate in, with a backstop against the expansive possibility of harm. In the most egregious cases, preemption threatens to revoke the rights of the persons who, at the local level, are asked to bear the risk and cost of residing with robots, and to prevent the resolution of conflicts through local levels of government. Preemption debates in technology law have already arisen around net neutrality, sharing economy platforms, and municipal broadband, with important consequences. Some proposed federal and state laws and existing state statutes already preempt cities on robotics in several important ways.
The purpose of this article is to provide a framework for public decision-makers to engage effectively with the firms that are bringing artificially intelligent robotics to market in public space. With an institutional economic perspective, this article suggests a means for evidence-based policymaking by breaking down design and its evaluation into constituent sequential components, recognizing the private and social costs of experimentation in cities, and recommending a limited scope for state and federal intervention. Part II begins by defining the characteristics of the current wave of robotics entering public space, placing public-facing robotics within the theory of the nature of technology, and elaborating on the process of product design with algorithmic feedback for machine learning in complex urban environments. Part III explores the opportunities and hazards that await cities as sites of experimentation, and introduces a comparative approach to policy-making to forestall social externalities while permitting technological change. Part IV explores the policy environment that is already taking shape for governing artificially intelligent robotics in public space. Part V draws on the arguments from the preceding parts of the paper to recommends against broad express preemption or field preemption at the state and federal level of local governments in robotics law. Part VI addresses possible counter arguments. Part VII concludes with a research agenda for urban robotics going forward.”
“The ubiquity of systems using artiﬁcial intelligence or “AI” has brought increasing attention to how those systems should be regulated. The choice of how to regulate AI systems will require care. AI systems have the potential to synthesize large amounts of data, allowing for greater levels of personalization and precision than ever before—applications range from clinical decision support to autonomous driving and predictive policing. That said, our AIs continue to lag in common sense reasoning [McCarthy, 1960], and thus there exist legitimate concerns about the intentional and unintentional negative consequences of AI systems [Bostrom, 2003, Amodei et al., 2016, Sculley et al., 2014].
How can we take advantage of what AI systems have to oﬀer, while also holding them accountable? In this work, we focus on one tool: explanation. Questions about a legal right to explanation from AI systems was recently debated in the EU General Data Protection Regulation [Goodman and Flaxman, 2016, Wachter et al., 2017a], and thus thinking carefully about when and how explanation from AI systems might improve accountability is timely. Good choices about when to demand explanation can help prevent negative consequences from AI systems, while poor choices may not only fail to hold AI systems accountable but also hamper the development of much-needed beneﬁcial AI systems.
Below, we brieﬂy review current societal, moral, and legal norms around explanation, and then focus on the diﬀerent contexts under which explanation is currently required under the law. We ﬁnd that there exists great variation around when explanation is demanded, but there also exist important consistencies: when demanding explanation from humans, what we typically want to know is whether and how certain input factors aﬀected the ﬁnal decision or outcome.
These consistencies allow us to list the technical considerations that must be considered if we desired AI systems that could provide kinds of explanations that are currently required of humans under the law. Contrary to popular wisdom of AI systems as indecipherable black boxes, we ﬁnd that this level of explanation should generally be technically feasible but may sometimes be practically onerous—there are certain aspects of explanation that may be simple for humans to provide but challenging for AI systems, and vice versa. As an interdisciplinary team of legal scholars, computer scientists, and cognitive scientists, we recommend that for the present, AI systems can and should be held to a similar standard of explanation as humans currently are; in the future we may wish to hold an AI to a diﬀerent standard.”
I interviewed Lawyer Caglar Ersoy, who wrote his first book “Robots, Artificial Intelligence and Law” on robots and law in Turkey. We talked about the effects of robots and AI on Law.
Cetin: How did the idea of writing a book on AI and Law was born?
Ersoy: At first, I was interested in the use of robotics in military areas.The reason for this was, the fact that they were already being used and they continue to advance. I began my researchs on this area and the subject expanded as I researched and this book occurred. I had aimed to write a paper but then I was finished it became a book ????
Cetin: Do you have any sections that you wanted to add to the book but did not?
Ersoy: Today, I wish that I had used more concrete examples. Especially, the culture has an important effect on this. This subject is endless, so you should limit and say what is enough.
Cetin:Do you think is there are any area that we must not use this technology under the law?
Ersoy: It is currently unacceptable that humans are completely removed from the cycle, I am one of the supporters of this option. I am thinking humans should not be sidelined. But programs’ advancement to next step depends on AI’s abilities. And it also depends on how far we can go to create an artificial intelligence. But for the time being, we should not place artificial intelligence into decisions regarding the human life. Especially in terms of international humanitarian law, the humans should not come out the cycle. And if it is paved the way for, the human element must not be eliminated. It is like to the nucleer frenzy, so humans should learn a lesson from this. But it should be banned until it becomes sophisticated.
Cetin:Do you think, a robot with an artificial intelligence can have a job on law profession? And can it become a lawyer?
Ersoy: I think it should. Maybe our workload will be reduced, we need to look on the bright side. Sure, it is not possible now, if you give a task to robot to meet a client, client might dismiss because of not being interested. But currently it is not possible today. They are more skilled than us on some subjects, for example analyzing. Of course, they will advance, but if emotional intelligence is not being designed by programmers, I do not think that especially a lawyer will be dismissed totally. Maybe it will be prensented as a right- the right to demand human intervention. It can be determined in the contract, so that, robot will assist a lawyer until a certain point, but after that the human intervention may be demanded if risk of error emerges afterwards. But it is not possible that the person humans will be completely out of the business. They are quite successful to suggest judge’s decisions; but many other factors are necessary as well in order that they replace judges. They will advance but probably we will not be able to see that they replace humans.
Cetin:Could a regulation exist among the robots themselves?
Ersoy: When they began to create languages among themselves, they can want an organization for themselves. If we do not hedge off or they overcome it, they can success in this. Maybe they have already established an organization, but we are not aware of it yet. If we succeed in the appropriate software, they can create this organisation. Attributing a personality is also an enforcement, this is also creating a organization. As their numbers increase, we will have to bring a system anyways. If we do not act first, they can try to do it better.
Cetin:We constantly talk about robots and AI. What do you think, they will think about humans?
Ersoy: I mentioned in the book. A fully developed artificial intelligence will understand that nothing useful will come out of humans for this world and will seek a way to escape from this world. I guess someone said something like: “They can not be seperate from us, because we create them and they contain something from us”. So, they are not able to think diffirentdifferent from us, unless they break this chain, then they certainly will think different from us. They look from above or from somewhere else, so they can move in a way that we cannot see.
Cetin:Should we be anxious about advancements in AI? Or we should be hopeful?
Ersoy: There are enough people, who warn about it. And they are important scientists. So, we should not be anxious at this point. They are right on this warning, because we face a technology that it can end badly when used by malicious people. At least, it seems to be that there is a control mechanism for the time being. There are important ethics and sociological developments on this topic and it is took precautions are taken. We will be dealing with “idiotic” artificial intelligences till there comes an advanced artificial intelligence on level to be scared from. They also might bare mistakes, but it seems to be prevented for now.
Cetin:What kind of regulations primarily are needed to be made regarding this area in Turkey?
Ersoy: It can be found in the fields of health and military in Turkey. There are a lot of investments in the healthcare sector and thus this condition affects the insurance sector. Operations can be done by robotic arms and maybe doctors will be just a supervisor. At this point, it is necessary to regulate the responsibility of the doctor, manufacturer and programmer. In general, it is the same in the world, first of all we need to regulate tort liability. Meanwhile, using the uses in the military will continues to advance. As a sector, health will be one of the first regulated fields, but then, especially tort liability will be needed for consideriation. There are discussions about personality but, it is so early for today. As soon as a gap appears, it needs to regulated quickly. But law will be always the late party. And sure, we can regulate by utilizing from our past accumulations.
Since 2000, Ugo Pagallo works at Turin University. Author has numerous articles, but his main field of interest are robotic, information of technology, AI and law. He is currently a member of the Ethical Committee of the CAPER project, supported by the European Commission through the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development.
“The Laws of Robots” which he published in 2013, sheds a light on the contentious subjects about this field. He investigates position of law in relation to technology and philosophy. He comments on problems to be faced in the event of torts or crimes.
It’ s a book, which must be read, on robot law especially about contracts and liability. But a bit expensive 🙂
Unfortunately, Turkish resources about robotic and law are very limited in Turkey. Recently publish this book, has a lot of general information regarding the subject. You can find conceptual discussions, EU reports, robot’s legal status and other various information.
In the preface, there is a good note from the author. “Maybe it is not possible to forecast which of our predictions will be realized for the future, but we cannot deny that the technology changes our lives in unpredictable way. Maybe, in twenty years from today, most likely we will be talking about some problems’ solutions that today we are not even aware of .”
However, due to his general overview of the topic, the content scratches the surface.. But it has a great bibliography for the interested people who can find many starting points.
I advise it for the ones in search of a Turkish resource.
There are two processes in the development of culture; in first process, human is inactive and is a receiver. He/she lives in a specific geographic area, provides his/her necessity of nourishment and shelter. This premise relation with nature, in other words, his/her information, language, attitude and his/her tangible production / consumption in regarding to his/her necessities appear as first the stage where the culture occurs. In the second stage, human leaves its receptive position and starts production, meaning; it gets involved with its surrounding as an active and active power.
Technology, in this sense, is a field that influences culture of man and be affected by its culture reciprocally. It should not be perceived just as, of tangible “things”, as technology bares also an influence on culture, on the social interactions as well as on the knowledge, belief, discourse and execution.
Cultural difference influences in dealings with robots and hence this influences areas of use in robotics. Besides, the inevitability of their use urges the changes in the culture as well
Difference in attitudes against the robots relies on something older and it is not the idea of the robot but in fact the religion. Consequently, there is a dissidence in the idea of robot between the Far East and the West.
In Japan, due to their animistic beliefs, people, culturally, tend to be open to the idea of robots. Animism is based on all objects having a soul, even if they are manmade. For this reason, Japanese people do not discriminate between inanimate objects and humans.1 Japan is not only a producer of technology, but also a country that works upon how humans connect with each other and their environment by present & future technology. Because of scarce natural resources, she is inclined to increase the added value on her manufactured products. The decrease in birth rate and the increase in the ageing population as well as the problems in environmental and energy issues, leads Japan to see the robots as a means to creating a better quality of life and more prosper population. So, these reasons provoked the establishment of companies concentrating on robotic technology.
In the West attitude against robots advanced differently due to the common monotheism beliefs. Monotheism dictates a belief that: at the beginning, there was only God, only God gives life, and all living things are his subjects Besides, it is also identified that idolatry is a sin. But, in Robotics, man acts as God in animating an inanimate entity. According to such a belief, creation of another type of life, inevitably, paves way to the destruction of God.2 Due to this dominant belief, the position against objects is not similar to the one in Japan. Rather, in concentrates mostly on the acceleration of manufacturing processes, development of the defense industry, increase of employment, entertainment and facilitating daily life.
Though being a pioneer in the development of robotic technologies, United States is also culturally handicapped about socially profiting the most out of the robotic technology. For this reason, researches, generally, turn towards to use of robots in military and industry.
In Europe, increasingly use of robots in production is vital to the advancement of manufacturing and employment. Besides, there are similar developments on the general industry and automotive as in United States.
Finally, culture not only effects the perception of robots, but also govern the robots’ design and area of usages. In this process, the solutions for the legal problems’ must be regulated.