Robots, Artificial Intelligence and Criminal Law

 

Robots, Artificial Intelligence and Criminal Law

 

 

 

Dr. Sinan Altunç

Bahçeşehir University, Law Faculty, Departmant of Criminal Law 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

English translation is soonish! 🙂

 

 

You can reach original and full article from the link below:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336406393_Robotlar_Yapay_Zeka_ve_Ceza_Hukuku

Two Close Friends: AI and Law

 

Two Close Friends: AI and Law

 

I interviewed Prof. Ryan Calo who is the Lane Powell and D. Wayne Gittinger Associate Professor at the University of Washington School of Law. He is a faculty co-director (with Batya Friedman and Tadayoshi Kohno) of the University of Washington Tech Policy Lab, a unique, interdisciplinary research unit that spans the School of Law, Information School, and Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering. Professor Calo’s research on law and emerging technology appears or is forthcoming in leading law reviews (California Law Review, University of Chicago Law Review, and Columbia Law Review) and technical publications (MIT Press, Nature, Artificial Intelligence) and is frequently referenced by the mainstream media (NPR, New York Times, Wall Street Journal).

 

Pleasant readings…

 

Cetin: Lets begin with a personal question. Robots and law… It has become quite a popular topic. How do you evaluate the development of this field?

Calo: I am very happy with the trajectory of robotics law and policy in the past ten years. It went from being a bit of a fringe conversation, at least in the United States, to a mature sub-discipline with sophisticated theory and concrete examples. I think that We Robot—the annual conference you’ve attended—has been instrumental.

 

Cetin: : Countries have gradually started to determine AI policies. What do you think about the effects of the democratic and economic structure of countries on AI policies?

Calo: Good question. Some countries are seeing AI as an opportunity to be more globally competitive, whereas others are worried about preserving their edge. The best policies in my view think about the social impacts of AI on their own society while understanding AI as a global enterprise. I don’t like the rhetoric of AI as a “race” that one or more countries will “win.” This kind of thinking leads to harmful shortcuts and hinders cooperation.

 

Cetin: Developing countries import the technological products largely, and these technological products find a great demand in the domestic market.  How do you think this situation affects AI regulations in developing countries?

Calo: I think it’s important to keep in mind that technology brings with it cultural and other assumptions. So when developed economies export technology to less developed ones, there is the potential that the values of those developed nations will accompany the product. Thus I think the AI policy of developing countries should include best practices around procurement. What I mean is that developing countries, though they may not be developing AI at the same rates, still have market power and can insist that the products they import respect their values and well-being. No entity should import AI without insisting on this.

 

Cetin: Comparing anglo-saxon law system with continental law system, what can the regulatory challenges of AI and robots be?

Calo: I actually think the challenges of robotics law are pretty consistent across common law and civil law. They include assessing responsibility for harm, privacy, and questions of control and ownership. It may be that common law proves more flexible in reacting to new technology but there’s no inherent reason that would be the case.

 

Cetin: Especially in recent years, technology companies have taken steps in artificial intelligence and ethics.  As an example, one of them was Google. What should be the most important issue for companies when determining policy on artificial intelligence and ethics?

Calo: I have long argued that we cannot emphasize ethics to the exclusion of law and policy. This phenomenon has become known as “ethics washing,” which captures the intuition many have that companies would rather craft their own ethical guidelines than face mandatory rules from government. So while the content of ethics programs is very important, so is the question of legitimacy.

With this understanding in place, companies should emphasize the ways that they harms and benefits of AI are often unevenly distributed and have processes in place to co-design AI with all stakeholders and assess the social impacts of new technologies, especially on the most vulnerable. This is more important in my opinion than mere transparency.

 

Cetin: The European Commission recently adopted the Cyber Security Act. This is an important step about information security in EU. What about the US? How do you evaluate the approachment of the US to cyber security in the terms of private sector and government applications?

Calo: I worry that the definition of hacking is outdated in light of AI, especially adversarial machine learning. I wrote a paper about this with colleagues in computer science entitled Is Tricking a Robot Hacking? We argue that manipulating AI by tricking it is becoming just as dangerous as breaking into a computer system. We need ways to make AI more robust against attack while also protecting researchers who are testing AI for insecurity or bias.

 

Cetin: CCPA is the one of the most important regulations in California.  But still there is no federal regulation on data protection in the US. What are the effects of this situation for individuals and companies?

Calo: I don’t know. Lots of people and groups, including companies themselves, are calling for federal baseline data protection in the United States. I think everyone is tired of the uncertainty and that fear and instability that results. I don’t the CCPA is perfect but I credit California for jump-starting the conversation in the U.S.

 

Cetin: I am sure this question is asked to you so much, but I ask it again for the robotic.legal readers.  What are your suggestions to university students who want to improve themselves in robot law?

Calo: Great question! I would say to attend or at least watch and follow We Robot. That is where this conversation is most vibrant. But also, seek out people in other disciplines. If you’re a roboticist, find the law and social science people. If you’re in law or social science, talk to the robotics and AI students and faculty. As I say often, very few important questions exist that can be resolved by reference to any single disciplines.

Thanks for your always excellent questions, Selin, and for educating people about about robotics law!

 

Respects to Dear Ryan Calo…

Robots Between Us

 

Robots Between Us

 

 

Robotic Process as known in recent years in the world of automation Automation (RPA) is blowing. Robot technology is preparing to move to a completely different dimension with Artificial Intelligence. Robots are expected to be active in almost all areas of business life, especially in the office.

Artificial intelligence-based robots promise much more in terms of productivity than people will start a new era in business. It is inevitable that the person who has lost his expertise to the robots in the transition period will have to re-train and have new abilities. It feels great that there will be no need for continuous work in a world where the distinction of robots and people who will take on more creative tasks that surpass artificial intelligence (if possible!)

Of course, the reflections of this trend which includes many rhetorical questions along with the subject of ‘creative’ works that we need to learn in Accounting, Tax and Audit sector have reached the dimensions that will satisfy Y-Generation / digital natives. Let’s get to know the metal collars ready to be the biggest supporter of the white collars after the blue-collar co-boots.

Three industrial revolutions are fallen from the sky..

People in the arms of the 4th Industrial Revolution. The quartet of mechanization, serialization, automation and digitalization have already been engraved in the literature as words that describe these phases of revolution. In fact, every change comes with a survival guide .

“It Is Not the Strongest of the Species that Survives But the Most Adaptable” said Charles Darwin. He sealed this universal truth with his signature in 1809. It’s time to inject the first dose into our bodies, as  we will face more change in next 30 years than the past 100 years of change.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE What is this “ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE”?

With the development of technology, does anyone deny that we are individuals with the idea of ​ doing more with less in many areas? While thousands of tiny orange robots in distribution centers in the United States take packages for storage to Amazon and send them to mail when sales are made, it does not seem unlikely that the answer to the above question will not come out as yes.

The simplest description of artificial intelligence; Add a pinch computer algorithm on the character of human intelligence. A tremendous mix… How does this mechanism work? Don’t go too far. Siri, technolgy in your palm, would comprehend the logic of the idea. Any artificial intelligence, when you ask the question X, will choose the most rational one from the answers given or defined before, and will present it to you. Of course, our subject matter is not just an artificial intelligence that filters information and turns to us. Keep your imagination wide. We’re talking about a mechanical or bot that can store an enormous amount of data anywhere on the Earth, with a probability of almost zero error. Machine learning, Deep Learning and more kinds of technology.

The issue is deep so it’s time to close the brackets and free dive to our main topic, Robots and Processes. First let’s get to know who these robots are. Then let’s devote the last page of our article to RPA fans. Boss, get me a robot! Although it has a symbolic importance in addition to the recent developments, the fact that IBM’s supercomputer Deep Blue defeated Garry Kasparov in 1997 has contributed to the establishment of a relationship of trust and admiration between man and robot. After seeing what these bots were capable of, the market masters, who realized that playing chess or GO, had little impact on the developing economy, quickly turned their eyes to business. In the first place, robots that would be used in simple production and service tasks would be able to undertake much more complex tasks over time, which happened as targeted. Experts predict that by 2025, many office tasks will be carried out by robots. That’s where our story begins. To date, many employees, who have disappeared from the field of business due to automation in developed economies, had to turn to new business lines that emerged through automated processes. However, this group was more concerned with the group that we call blue collar. Nowadays, the creators emphasize that we are in a phase where artificial intelligence intensely exists in white collar jobs. Our office colleagues, referred to as metal collars, are likely to stand up to us, especially in some service areas. If the basic function of your job is to take the number in one Excel cell and move it to another cell and print this process, the robots will knock on your door soon. It is estimated that 50 percent of the current employment in the US will change in the next 20 years with developing robot technologies.

In 2045, half of the workers, civil servants and middle managers will be robots! It may happen even it is aggressive growth target. Let’s remember Hitachi, it has been four years since production managers transferred some of their tasks to ERP software. There are people who empathize with people and behave mercifully. Do you remember the Mechas in the movie of Spielberg Artifical Intelliigence? Hyundai developed wearable robots (exoskeleton) in 2017 and plans to robotize people, at least in logistics and loading areas, instead of hiring robot workers. Thus, many people will be able to continue working in factories without being unemployed. But there is a bitter truth that human evolution is progressing more slowly than machines. Considering that the performance of the processor doubles every 2 years under Moore’s law, the sentiment that we will fall back in this marathon is strong. On the other hand, the world’s most powerful and valuable resource is intelligence. Human intelligence is the only example that has the ability to imagine, design and implement in all forms of intelligence. That is why I think that the human touch at certain points will never lose its value. Although most of the artificial intelligence produced in Silicon Valley and other technology centers has a cottony feeling that most people focus on developing their talents, rather than replacing them, there is only one reality for our geography. We urgently need to move from digital immigration to digital lover.… Neither Hawking’s concern for human catastrophe nor Musk’s universal income utopia. There is only one magic phrase in the box at the end of the labyrinth: “There is no escape from the smart future”. We didn’t run.

RPA cinema proudly presents you here.

Our digital angels: “Stella Spencer, Sue, Suzy, Sunny”

Hi Spencer, can you tell the Deloitte Times readers about yourself?

In November 2018, I was coded in Deloitte Istanbul office. I’m an RPA Bot. I work as a digital accountant at Deloitte BPS with my four other bot friends.

RPA? What is this RPA? What does it mean to be a bot?

TR / Robotic Process Automation is a software technology that can simulate any process a person makes on a computer. I am software robot or bot, imitating an employee, logging into applications, entering data, completing tasks, and calculating. I’m a metal collar. I have the ability to do all the algorithmic work that the white collar can do. I am able to finish boring and repetitive jobs in 1/10 of a the white collar employee’s time and I can work 7/24 since I am a robot. A virtual ROBOT!

A traditional IT automation can do what it says, what is your difference?

I’m not part of the IT infrastructure. What distinguishes me from traditional IT automation is my ability to be aware of changing conditions, exceptions and to adapt new situations quickly. I am able to be Re-coded, designed, integrated into to the systems easily. I can work 24/7 without getting tired, taking a break, getting tired of it. For example; my job description is to make all declarations and notifications with automatic and multi-thinking systems among applications. It is my job to fill out the tax declarations from the BDP interface and send them to the relevant teams for approval by obtaining PDFs through the online system of revenue administration. Classic automation perceives a missing taxpayer data as an exception and passes it back to the personnel. I can do my own work. I integrate the relevant source system, I can add the missing data to the relevant place without the need for human intervention. I have the ability to correct myself. Sue automatically makes the job exits and entrances from SSI system. She do not need to ask the SSI passwords of the companies to anyone. When Sue is triggered by the task, she is able to find and use relevant register and password records.

It is impressive! What is the cost of a tailor sewing his own tear? I guess you have a cool salary scale, right? Do you take overtime?

My license fee is my bare salary. In the medium term, I would say I cost less than a full-time wage employer of the company. Besides, I work 24/7 and I don’t receive any overtime fee. According to statistics, there is a benefit ratio like 1 robot / 4 full staff.

Cost benefit is indisputable, so why should they prefer to hire you? Does the RPA realm have rules like the famous 3 robot rules?

First of all, it is very important that the businesses that will prefer me are homogeneous in their way of doing business. Our first ultrasound before our birth is the “Proof of Concept” certificate. If you have a frequent, repetitive, rule-based business and a standardized ecosystem, our POC values ​​will be high.So, it means we are ready for delivery. If you have an inventory that the rules change very often or inventory can not be converted to digital or difficult to get digital data, you should not rush for us since there are gaps and non-homogeneous agents in your processes. It is the healthiest way to advance with a full RPA project after the completion of improvement of the existing processes .

Let us come to the answer to the question why you should choose us. According to the RPA constitution, we have 7 golden rules that describe our purpose of existence.

  • Better quality services: fewer errors and better service.
  • Better compliance: Business processes are shaped in accordance with existing regulations and standards.
  • Increased speed: Due to the reduction in processing time of robots, tasks are completed at speeds never experienced before.
  • Increased agility: Ability to adapt to new or changing process rules with reduced load.
  • Comprehensive analysis: Improved efficiency by digitizing and auditing process data.
  • Reduced costs: Manual or repetitive jobs are automated by RPA software. Allows competitive pricing.
  • Employee experience: More interesting and less ordinary, less manual work, high employee productivity.

Very good wishes, but were you able to have desired outcome in real life?

Perfectly… All declaration processes are designed to be lawful, with minimum error and zero error margins, and the processes are managed successfully. We have managed to cure the digital hunchback of accounting and tax in terms of documentation and record management. The homogeneity of the work patterns reached 100%. Automatic approvals, rejections came out of the individual monopoly. Transparency, system logs, information privacy, separation of tasks principle is experiencing the golden age. The working hours and the expenses of the working hours during the declaration periods were automatically eliminated. Our digital literacy rate increade to 100%. We have very good deal with digital collars and digital natives. The countdown has already begun for new processes.

Last word, what can you say for the future tax world?

Short and concise … Technology is the main force that allows time to flow, and those who own it now and in the future, will be the winning party as in the past.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Researching of Criminal Responsibility of Artificial Intelligence Robots

 

Researching of Criminal Responsibility of Artificial Intelligence Robots

 

 

 

Lawyer Melisa Aydemir 

Crime and Punishment: The Journal of Criminal Law

December 2018

 

 

 

 

Abstract

 

“In this thesis, the criminal responsibilities of the robots with artificial intelligence are discussed. Many of the technological developments started by taking the internet of things, the internet of things, unified in artificial intelligence and even found themselves. We are witnessing more and more conversions and developments of robots with artificial intelligence, which we see a magnificent reflection of technological developments, and this excites us like many scientists. However, this excitement as well as a lot of obscurity. Likewise, when we question the question of bil what they can achieve usunda in the future and even today’s plan, we are able to engage ourselves in the spell of our answers, as well as in the question of how any damages / dangers can be compensated when the legal norms are violated. In the light of all these developments, if we leave aside the legal responsibility of artificial intelligence, we can declare that we feel obliged to give place to our research in order to respond to the question of what its position in criminal law would be. We hope that at the end of this thesis you will have some insight into what the penal responsibilities of artificial intelligence robots will be and what status they can take in the world of law.”

 

You can find the article below:

Regulating Artificial Intelligence Systems: Risks, Challenges, Competencies, and Strategies

 

Regulating Artificial Intelligence Systems: Risks, Challenges, Competencies, and Strategies

 

 

 

 

 

Abstract

“Artificial intelligence technology (or AI) has developed rapidly during the past decade, and the effects of the AI revolution are already being keenly felt in many sectors of the economy. A growing chorus of commentators, scientists, and entrepreneurs has expressed alarm regarding the increasing role that autonomous machines are playing in society, with some suggesting that government regulation may be necessary to reduce the public risks that AI will pose. Unfortunately, the unique features of AI and the manner in which AI can be developed present both practical and conceptual challenges for the legal system. These challenges must be confronted if the legal system is to positively impact the development of AI and ensure that aggrieved parties receive compensation when AI systems cause harm. This article will explore the public risks associated with AIand the competencies of government institutions in managing those risks. It concludes with a proposal for an indirect form of AI regulation based on differential tort liability.”

 

You can find original paper and the link below:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2609777##

 

You Might Be a Robot

 

You Might Be a Robot

 

Mark A. Lemley

Stanford Law School

Bryan Casey

Stanford Law School

February 1, 2019

 

 

Abstract

 

“As robots and artificial intelligence (AI) increase their influence over society, policymakers are increasingly regulating them. But to regulate these technologies, we first need to know what they are. And here we come to a problem. No one has been able to offer a decent definition of robots and AI — not even experts. What’s more, technological advances make it harder and harder each day to tell people from robots and robots from “dumb” machines. We’ve already seen disastrous legal definitions written with one target in mind inadvertently affecting others. In fact, if you’re reading this you’re (probably) not a robot, but certain laws might already treat you as one.

Definitional challenges like these aren’t exclusive to robots and AI. But today, all signs indicate we’re approaching an inflection point. Whether it’s citywide bans of “robot sex brothels” or nationwide efforts to crack down on “ticket scalping bots,” we’re witnessing an explosion of interest in regulating robots, human enhancement technologies, and all things in between. And that, in turn, means that typological quandaries once confined to philosophy seminars can no longer be dismissed as academic. Want, for example, to crack down on foreign “influence campaigns” by regulating social media bots? Be careful not to define “bot” too broadly (like the California legislature recently did), or the supercomputer nestled in your pocket might just make you one. Want, instead, to promote traffic safety by regulating drivers? Be careful not to presume that only humans can drive (as our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards do), or you may soon exclude the best drivers on the road.

In this Article, we suggest that the problem isn’t simply that we haven’t hit upon the right definition. Instead, there may not be a “right” definition for the multifaceted, rapidly evolving technologies we call robots or AI. As we’ll demonstrate, even the most thoughtful of definitions risk being overbroad, underinclusive, or simply irrelevant in short order. Rather than trying in vain to find the perfect definition, we instead argue that policymakers should do as the great computer scientist, Alan Turing, did when confronted with the challenge of defining robots: embrace their ineffable nature. We offer several strategies to do so. First, whenever possible, laws should regulate behavior, not things (or as we put it, regulate verbs, not nouns). Second, where we must distinguish robots from other entities, the law should apply what we call Turing’s Razor, identifying robots on a case-by-case basis. Third, we offer six functional criteria for making these types of “I know it when I see it” determinations and argue that courts are generally better positioned than legislators to apply such standards. Finally, we argue that if we must have definitions rather than apply standards, they should be as short-term and contingent as possible. That, in turn, suggests regulators—not legislators—should play the defining role.”

 

You can find the original paper and link below:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3327602

 

 

Review of Controls for Certain Emerging Technologies

 

Review of Controls for Certain Emerging Technologies

Bureau of Industry and Security

November 19, 2018

 

Summary

“The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) controls the export of dual-use and less sensitive military items through the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), including the Commerce Control List (CCL). As controls on exports of technology are a key component of the effort to protect sensitive U.S. technology, many sensitive technologies are listed on the CCL, often consistent with the lists maintained by the multilateral export control regimes of which the United States is a member. Certain technologies, however, may not yet be listed on the CCL or controlled multilaterally because they are emerging technologies. As such, they have not yet been evaluated for their national security impacts. This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeks public comment on criteria for identifying emerging technologies that are essential to U.S. national security, for example because they have potential conventional weapons, intelligence collection, weapons of mass destruction, or terrorist applications or could provide the United States with a qualitative military or intelligence advantage. Comment on this ANPRM will help inform the interagency process to identify and describe such emerging technologies. This interagency process is anticipated to result in proposed rules for new Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) on the CCL.”

 

You can find the link and original proposed rulemaking below:

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-11-19/pdf/2018-25221.pdf

Artificial intelligence: Anticipating Its Impact On Jobs To Ensure A Fair Transition

 

Artificial intelligence: Anticipating Its Impact On Jobs To Ensure A Fair Transition 

avrupa birliği ile ilgili görsel sonucu

European Economic and Social Committee

Rapporteur: Franca SALIS-MADINIER

19/09/2018

 

1.Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.Artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics will expand and amplify the impact of the digitalisation of the economy on labour markets. Technological progress has always affected work and employment, requiring new forms of social and societal management. The EESC believes that technological development can contribute to economic and social progress; however, it feels that it would be a mistake to overlook its overall impact on society. In the world of work, AI will expand and amplify the scope of job automation. This is why the EESC would like to give its input to efforts to lay the groundwork for the social transformations which will go hand in hand with the rise of AI and robotics, by reinforcing and renewing the European social model.

1.2.The EESC flags up the potential of AI and its applications, particularly in the areas of healthcare, security in the transport and energy sectors, combating climate change and anticipating threats in the field of cybersecurity. The European Union, governments and civil society organisations have a key role to play when it comes to fully tapping the potential advantages of AI, particularly for people with disabilities or reduced mobility, the elderly and people with chronic health issues.

1.3.However, the EU has insufficient data on the digital economy and the resulting social transformation. The EESC recommends improving statistical tools and research, particularly on AI, the use of industrial and service robots, the Internet of Things and new economic models (the platform-based economy and new forms of employment and work).

1.4.The EESC calls on the European Commission to promote and support studies carried out by European sector-level social dialogue committees on the sector-specific impact of AI and robotics and, more broadly, of the digitalisation of the economy.

1.5.It is acknowledged that AI and robotics will displace and transform jobs, by eliminating some and creating others. Whatever the outcome, the EU must guarantee access to social protection for all workers, employees and self-employed or bogus self-employed persons, in line with the European Pillar of Social Rights.

 

You can find the link of the full document below:

https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions-information-reports/opinions/artificial-intelligence-anticipating-its-impact-jobs-ensure-fair-transition-own-initiative-opinion