Robots of Just War: A Legal Perspective

Pagallo, Ugo

doi:10.1007/s13347-011-0024-9

Cited by 25 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(31 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Standardization intends to reinscribe consider-act-reflect loops for more inclusive engineering. But rarely do punitive interventions foster intrinsic professional formation, producing phronesis in context-responsive judgment [41]. Where implemented, technical ethics codes risk deepening technocratic power differentials rather than empowering the public capabilities needed to meaningfully co-govern innovation trajectories intricately bound up in communal futurology [42].…”

Section: Bureaucratic Proceduralsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultivating Dignity in Intelligent Systems

Fasoro

2024

Philosophies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As artificial intelligence (AI) integrates across social domains, prevailing technical paradigms often overlook human relational needs vital for cooperative resilience. Alternative pathways consciously supporting dignity and wisdom warrant consideration. Integrating seminal insights from virtue and care ethics, this article delineates the following four cardinal design principles prioritizing communal health: (1) affirming the sanctity of life; (2) nurturing healthy attachment; (3) facilitating communal wholeness; and (4) safeguarding societal resilience. Grounding my analysis in the rich traditions of moral philosophy, I argue that these principles scaffold sustainable innovation trajectories that consciously center shared welfare advancement over detached technical capabilities or efficiency benchmarks alone. Elucidating connections with pioneering initiatives demonstrates fragments of this vision taking embryonic shape, yet pervasive adoption remains largely aspirational to date. Fulfilling dignity-based artificial intelligence demands ongoing collective commitment beyond firms’ profit motives or governance proceduralism. My conclusions urge technology policies and priorities directed toward empowering the vulnerability of people rather than controlling the optimization of systems.

show abstract

Section: Bureaucratic Proceduralsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultivating Dignity in Intelligent Systems

Fasoro

2024

Philosophies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With AI, meanwhile, ethical concern has centred on the issues of control and accountability. 21 In theory, AI systems will be able to distinguish between combatant and non-combatant, according to parameters established by human handlers. And they will then be able to apply force with great precision, allowing for fine discrimination.…”

Section: Ethicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Artificial Intelligence: A Revolution in Strategic Affairs?

Payne

2018

Survival

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nuclear weapons would be used by human decision-makers and would therefore be subject to human psychology, even if some theorists sought to use them in an abstractly rational manner. AI systems, by contrast, do not make decisions in the same way as humans would, even if their algorithms are often loosely modelled on human cognition. Additionally, AI will be more useable across a full spectrum of force, and indeed more broadly than force itself, shaping all conflicts from the lowest to highest intensity and the smallest to largest scale. Current and future capabilities in AIRecent gains in sensing, categorising and decision-making by modern AI have been marked and rapid. 1 Much progress has been made by AI systems utilising 'deep learning' methods that model, albeit with considerable abstraction and simplification, the neural processes of human brains. At the cutting edge of AI research, algorithms are demonstrating an increasing capacity to learn without supervision, with limited data for training, and to cope with ambiguous and asymmetric information. These developments move AI beyond rapid, brute-force calculation and pattern recognition within tremendous volumes of data -traditional strengths of machine intelligence. AIs can now win at Go (a game with far too many permutations to be susceptible to brute force) and poker (with its asymmetric knowledge of the stakes). 2 Most ongoing AI research is in sectors that are not explicitly defence related -for example in healthcare, internet search or civilianvehicle manufacture.Yet the broad capabilities under development -the ability to flexibly categorise information and use this as a basis for decision-making -have clear strategic utility. Early studies indicate that AI will be useful at both the tactical and the strategic levels. 3 For strategic-level decision-making, however, there is likely to be more ambiguity about the data on which to make decisions and the reward functions that any machine seeks to satisfy.AI's immediate role, it seems, will be in the tactical domain; but that will nonetheless have important strategic implications.AI is already a military reality. For example, weapons-guidance systems make decisions independently of human input (other than in setting the

show abstract

“…This set of robotic applications started developing an amazing pace since the mid-1990s. Then, it was the turn of unmanned aerial vehicles ("UAVs"), or systems ("UAS"), that upset the military field in the mid-2000s [9]. A few years later, time was ripe for the advent of self-driving cars: whereas the Nevada Governor signed a bill into law in June 2011 that for the first time ever authorized the use of driverless cars on public roads, other states in the U.S. soon followed suit.…”

Section: Current Trends Of Roboticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vital, Sophia, and Co.—The Quest for the Legal Personhood of Robots

Pagallo

2018

Information

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper examines today’s debate on the legal status of AI robots, and how often scholars and policy makers confuse the legal agenthood of these artificial agents with the status of legal personhood. By taking into account current trends in the field, the paper suggests a twofold stance. First, policy makers shall seriously mull over the possibility of establishing novel forms of accountability and liability for the activities of AI robots in contracts and business law, e.g., new forms of legal agenthood in cases of complex distributed responsibility. Second, any hypothesis of granting AI robots full legal personhood has to be discarded in the foreseeable future. However, how should we deal with Sophia, which became the first AI application to receive citizenship of any country, namely, Saudi Arabia, in October 2017? Admittedly, granting someone, or something, legal personhood is—as always has been—a highly sensitive political issue that does not simply hinge on rational choices and empirical evidence. Discretion, arbitrariness, and even bizarre decisions play a role in this context. However, the normative reasons why legal systems grant human and artificial entities, such as corporations, their status, help us taking sides in today’s quest for the legal personhood of AI robots. Is citizen Sophia really conscious, or capable of suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous scholars?

show abstract

Robots of Just War: A Legal Perspective

Cited by 25 publications

References 20 publications

Cultivating Dignity in Intelligent Systems

Cultivating Dignity in Intelligent Systems

Artificial Intelligence: A Revolution in Strategic Affairs?

Vital, Sophia, and Co.—The Quest for the Legal Personhood of Robots

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About