Legal Status of Artificial Intelligence from Quantum-Theoretic Perspective

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW BRICS Law Journal Pub Date : 2023-12-06 DOI:10.21684/2412-2343-2023-10-4-5-34
E. Melnikova, I. Surov
{"title":"Legal Status of Artificial Intelligence from Quantum-Theoretic Perspective","authors":"E. Melnikova, I. Surov","doi":"10.21684/2412-2343-2023-10-4-5-34","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Massive inclusion of artificial intelligence (AI) in the technosphere and electronic governments urges an update in legal regulation of these and related areas. The issue converges on the key question of whether AI can be endowed with legal personhood and capacity. Opposing views in this respect build on hardly compatible ethics and largely outdated scientific grounds with a clear perspective for deep cultural antagonisms and further fragmentation of the world. We contribute to this debate from the perspective of quantum cognitive science and show how it can resolve some of the current impasses. Our approach builds on the quantum-theoretic refinement of the concept of uncertainty into quantum and classical types: classical uncertainty denotes subjective ignorance of the present state of affairs, while quantum uncertainty accounts for individual freedom to construct the future. We show that legal capacity of intelligence, at bottom, is defined by the type of uncertainty it is capable to resolve. Natural intelligence, in particular, can resolve quantum uncertainties, generating genuine novelty and affective experience in the process. Classical AI, in contrast, is limited to algorithmic computation, bound to produce predefined results regardless of its complexity. Concepts of decision-making, subjectness, creativity, and personal meaning then are recognized as physically inapplicable to such systems. The proposed definitions of these terms complement and sharpen the criteria of legal capacity in the existing legislations, indicating that “autonomy” is essentially equivalent to “appreciation.” Classical AI then appears as fundamentally alien to subjectness and legal capacity both in civil and common laws, resolving a delicate contradiction between them. Quantum-empowered AI, in contrast, escapes this conclusion due to its access to quantum uncertainty, introducing novel challenges with respect to responsibility gaps and meaningful human control. The developed approach aligns with the present legal practice and ethical discourse, contributing to the scientifically informed development of law in technological societies.","PeriodicalId":41782,"journal":{"name":"BRICS Law Journal","volume":"55 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BRICS Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2023-10-4-5-34","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Massive inclusion of artificial intelligence (AI) in the technosphere and electronic governments urges an update in legal regulation of these and related areas. The issue converges on the key question of whether AI can be endowed with legal personhood and capacity. Opposing views in this respect build on hardly compatible ethics and largely outdated scientific grounds with a clear perspective for deep cultural antagonisms and further fragmentation of the world. We contribute to this debate from the perspective of quantum cognitive science and show how it can resolve some of the current impasses. Our approach builds on the quantum-theoretic refinement of the concept of uncertainty into quantum and classical types: classical uncertainty denotes subjective ignorance of the present state of affairs, while quantum uncertainty accounts for individual freedom to construct the future. We show that legal capacity of intelligence, at bottom, is defined by the type of uncertainty it is capable to resolve. Natural intelligence, in particular, can resolve quantum uncertainties, generating genuine novelty and affective experience in the process. Classical AI, in contrast, is limited to algorithmic computation, bound to produce predefined results regardless of its complexity. Concepts of decision-making, subjectness, creativity, and personal meaning then are recognized as physically inapplicable to such systems. The proposed definitions of these terms complement and sharpen the criteria of legal capacity in the existing legislations, indicating that “autonomy” is essentially equivalent to “appreciation.” Classical AI then appears as fundamentally alien to subjectness and legal capacity both in civil and common laws, resolving a delicate contradiction between them. Quantum-empowered AI, in contrast, escapes this conclusion due to its access to quantum uncertainty, introducing novel challenges with respect to responsibility gaps and meaningful human control. The developed approach aligns with the present legal practice and ethical discourse, contributing to the scientifically informed development of law in technological societies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从量子理论角度看人工智能的法律地位
人工智能(AI)在技术圈和电子政府中的大规模融入,促使对这些领域和相关领域的法律监管进行更新。这个问题集中在人工智能是否可以被赋予法律人格和行为能力的关键问题上。在这方面的反对意见建立在难以兼容的伦理和大部分过时的科学基础上,对深刻的文化对抗和世界的进一步分裂有一个清晰的看法。我们从量子认知科学的角度为这场辩论做出了贡献,并展示了它如何解决当前的一些僵局。我们的方法建立在对不确定性概念的量子理论细化为量子和经典类型的基础上:经典不确定性表示对当前状态的主观无知,而量子不确定性则说明了个人构建未来的自由。我们表明,智力的法律能力,从根本上说,是由它能够解决的不确定性类型来定义的。特别是自然智能,可以解决量子不确定性,在这个过程中产生真正的新奇和情感体验。相比之下,经典人工智能仅限于算法计算,无论其复杂性如何,都必然产生预定义的结果。决策、主体性、创造力和个人意义的概念被认为在物理上不适用于这样的系统。这些术语的拟议定义补充和强化了现有立法中的法律行为能力标准,表明“自治”本质上等同于“赞赏”。古典人工智能似乎从根本上与民法和普通法中的主体性和法律行为能力格格不入,解决了它们之间的微妙矛盾。相比之下,量子授权的人工智能由于其对量子不确定性的访问而逃避了这一结论,在责任差距和有意义的人类控制方面引入了新的挑战。开发的方法与目前的法律实践和伦理话语一致,有助于科学地发展技术社会中的法律。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
25.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: The BRICS is an acronym for an association of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, evolved from mere investment lingo to an organized network, in the process assuming a greater geopolitical role aimed at institutional reforms that shift global power. All five countries adhere to principles of inclusive macroeconomic and social policies and are focusing on responsible national growth strategies. The BRICS Law Journal is a platform for relevant comparative research and legal development not only in and between the BRICS countries themselves but also between those countries and others. The journal is an open forum for legal scholars and practitioners to reflect on issues that are relevant to the BRICS and internationally significant. Prospective authors who are involved in relevant legal research, legal writing and legal development are, therefore, the main source of potential contributions.
期刊最新文献
The System of Indigenous Peoples’ Protection in BRICS States: An Overview of Legal and Litigation Support Legal Status of Artificial Intelligence from Quantum-Theoretic Perspective A Comparative Study of Domestic Violence in BRICS Nations – Pre and Post COVID-19 Digital Transformation Challenges to the Tax Security of the State in Russia and Other BRICS Countries A Study of the Availability and Demand of Digital Services for the Manifestation of Social and Political Activity by Citizens
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1