AI as a Legal Person

Laukyte, Migle

doi:10.1145/3322640.3326701

Cited by 5 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, inspired by Laukyte (2019) , we add right 1.20 to store and process data which arguably is associated specifically with robots.…”

Section: Theoretical Background and Survey Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Strikingly, many of these properties are requirements for moral personhood. Laukyte (2019) states that the increasing autonomy, intelligence, perceptiveness, and empathy of robots shift our view away from robots as mere tools. These are among the main reasons for granting robots rights.…”

Section: Theoretical Background and Survey Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Understanding others’ minds ( Gray et al, 2007 ; Gray et al, 2012 ) also seems relevant as Laukyte (2019) states that empathy of robots shifts our view away from robots as mere tools, and, moreover, this capacity matches with an item in the mental capacity scale ( Malle, 2019 ). The notion of understanding others also raises the question about one’s own unique personality or identity and related notions of connectedness such as love as reasons for having rights, which motivated introducing items 2.18-20.…”

Section: Theoretical Background and Survey Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At the same time, others have argued that we need to consider legal personhood for robots because current legal concepts of, for example, responsibility and product liability are no longer sufficient for ensuring justice and protecting those whose interests are at stake ( Laukyte, 2019 ). Thus, robots challenge the law and legal institutions in new ways ( Calo, 2015 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Who Wants to Grant Robots Rights?

Graaf¹,

Hindriks²,

Hindriks³

2022

Front. Robot. AI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The robot rights debate has thus far proceeded without any reliable data concerning the public opinion about robots and the rights they should have. We have administered an online survey (n = 439) that investigates layman’s attitudes toward granting particular rights to robots. Furthermore, we have asked them the reasons for their willingness to grant them those rights. Finally, we have administered general perceptions of robots regarding appearance, capacities, and traits. Results show that rights can be divided in sociopolitical and robot dimensions. Reasons can be distinguished along cognition and compassion dimensions. People generally have a positive view about robot interaction capacities. We found that people are more willing to grant basic robot rights such as access to energy and the right to update to robots than sociopolitical rights such as voting rights and the right to own property. Attitudes toward granting rights to robots depend on the cognitive and affective capacities people believe robots possess or will possess in the future. Our results suggest that the robot rights debate stands to benefit greatly from a common understanding of the capacity potentials of future robots.

show abstract

“…Finally, inspired by Laukyte (2019) , we add right 1.20 to store and process data which arguably is associated specifically with robots.…”

Section: Theoretical Background and Survey Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Theoretical Background and Survey Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Theoretical Background and Survey Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Who Wants to Grant Robots Rights?

Graaf¹,

Hindriks²,

Hindriks³

2022

Front. Robot. AI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is especially necessary because with growing autonomy of robots, they need to be seen less as tools than as agents (Resolution of the European Parliament, (2015/2103(INL)). The connections that need to be established in order to identify a responsible party in case of error are often unclear, or, in other words, current existing concepts are no longer sufficient (Laukyte, 2019). Law in general, or legal institutions specifically, are challenged in a new way by advanced technologies (Calo, 2015).…”

Section: Introduction Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Embodied Digital Technologies: First insights in the Social and Legal Perception of Robots and Users of Prostheses.

Mandl¹,

Bretschneider²,

Meyer³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New bionic technologies and robots are becoming increasingly common in work spaces and private spheres. It is thus crucial to understand concerns regarding their use in social and legal terms and the qualities they should possess to be accepted as ‘co-workers’. Previous research in these areas used the Stereotype Content Model (SCM) to investigate, for example attributions of warmth and competence towards people who use bionic prostheses, cyborgs, and robots. In the present study, we propose to differentiate the Warmth dimension into the dimensions Sociability and Morality to gain deeper insight in how people with or without bionic prostheses are perceived. In addition, we extend our research to the perception of robots, such as industrial, social, or android robots. Since legal aspects need to be considered if robots are expected to be ‘co-workers’, we also evaluated current perceptions of robots in terms of legal questions. We conducted two studies in which participants rated visual stimuli of individuals with or without disabilities and low- or high-tech prostheses, and robots of different levels of Anthropomorphism (Study 1), or robots of different levels of Anthropomorphism (Study 2), in terms of Competence, Sociability, and Morality, and, for Study 2, Legal Personality and Decision-Making Authority. We also controlled for participants’ personality. Results showed that attributions of Competence and Morality varied as a function of technical sophistication of the prostheses. For robots, competence attributions were negatively related to Anthropomorphism. Sociability, Morality, Legal Personality , and Decision-Making Authority varied as functions of Anthropomorphism. Overall, this study provides a contribution to technological design, which aims at ensuring high acceptance and minimal undesirable side effects, both with regard to the application of bionic instruments and robotics. Additionally, first insights in whether more anthropomorphized robots will need to be considered differently in terms of legal practice are given.

show abstract

Who Wants to Grant Robots Rights?

Graaf

Hindriks

2021

Companion of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The robot rights debate has thus far proceeded without any reliable data concerning the public opinion about robots and the rights they should have. We have administered an online survey (n = 200) that investigates layman's attitudes towards granting particular rights to robots. Furthermore, we have asked them for what reasons they are willing to grant them those rights. Finally, we have administered general perceptions of robots regarding appearance, capacities, and traits. Results show that rights can be divided in sociopolitical and computing dimensions, and reasons into cognition and compassion dimensions. People generally have a positive view on robot interaction capacities. Attitudes towards robot rights depend on age and experience as well as on the cognitive and affective capacities people believe robots will ever possess. Our results suggest that the robot rights debate stands to benefit greatly from a common understanding of the capacity potentials of future robots. CCS CONCEPTS• Human-centered computing → Empirical studies in HCI; HCI theory, concepts and models; • Social and professional topics → User characteristics; Computing / technology policy.

show abstract

AI as a Legal Person

Cited by 5 publications

References 4 publications

Who Wants to Grant Robots Rights?

Who Wants to Grant Robots Rights?

Embodied Digital Technologies: First insights in the Social and Legal Perception of Robots and Users of Prostheses.

Who Wants to Grant Robots Rights?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About