{"title":"AI versus robot: in search of a domain for the new European civil law","authors":"Paweł Księżak, Sylwia Wojtczak","doi":"10.1080/17579961.2020.1815404","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In 2017, the European Parliament issued a Resolution calling on the Commission to elaborate new solutions based on civil law that could respond to the rapid present-day development of robotics and AI. The Resolution, pushing for the preparation of new tort law focusing on robots, postulates that a new definition of robot be prepared. Responding to the Resolution, this paper consists in a legal-cognitive-linguistic analysis which draws three conclusions: firstly, that the definitional method is not the best approach to determining the scope of the regulation of robotics and AI; secondly, that the Resolution is incorrect in assuming that a new civil law solution should turn on differentiating between AI and robots and that robots should be treated as focal in determining the scope of the regulation; and, thirdly, that any new norms should be rooted in the concept of AI and not, as proposed by the Resolution, in the concept of robot.","PeriodicalId":37639,"journal":{"name":"Law, Innovation and Technology","volume":"12 1","pages":"297 - 317"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17579961.2020.1815404","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law, Innovation and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2020.1815404","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
ABSTRACT In 2017, the European Parliament issued a Resolution calling on the Commission to elaborate new solutions based on civil law that could respond to the rapid present-day development of robotics and AI. The Resolution, pushing for the preparation of new tort law focusing on robots, postulates that a new definition of robot be prepared. Responding to the Resolution, this paper consists in a legal-cognitive-linguistic analysis which draws three conclusions: firstly, that the definitional method is not the best approach to determining the scope of the regulation of robotics and AI; secondly, that the Resolution is incorrect in assuming that a new civil law solution should turn on differentiating between AI and robots and that robots should be treated as focal in determining the scope of the regulation; and, thirdly, that any new norms should be rooted in the concept of AI and not, as proposed by the Resolution, in the concept of robot.
期刊介绍：
Stem cell research, cloning, GMOs ... How do regulations affect such emerging technologies? What impact do new technologies have on law? And can we rely on technology itself as a regulatory tool? The meeting of law and technology is rapidly becoming an increasingly significant (and controversial) topic. Law, Innovation and Technology is, however, the only journal to engage fully with it, setting an innovative and distinctive agenda for lawyers, ethicists and policy makers. Spanning ICTs, biotechnologies, nanotechnologies, neurotechnologies, robotics and AI, it offers a unique forum for the highest level of reflection on this essential area.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
