人工智能与责任:没有差距,只有丰富

IF 0.7 2区 哲学 Q4 ETHICS Journal of Applied Philosophy Pub Date : 2024-09-13 DOI:10.1111/japp.12765
Maximilian Kiener
{"title":"人工智能与责任:没有差距,只有丰富","authors":"Maximilian Kiener","doi":"10.1111/japp.12765","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The best‐performing AI systems, such as deep neural networks, tend to be the ones that are most difficult to control and understand. For this reason, scholars worry that the use of AI would lead to so‐called <jats:italic>responsibility gaps</jats:italic>, that is, situations in which no one is morally responsible for the harm caused by AI, because no one satisfies the so‐called control condition and epistemic condition of moral responsibility. In this article, I acknowledge that there is a significant challenge around responsibility and AI. Yet I don't think that this challenge is best captured in terms of a responsibility <jats:italic>gap</jats:italic>. Instead, I argue for the opposite view, namely that there is responsibility <jats:italic>abundance</jats:italic>, that is, a situation in which <jats:italic>numerous</jats:italic> agents are responsible for the harm caused by AI, and that the challenge comes from the difficulties of dealing with such abundance in practice. I conclude by arguing that reframing the challenge in this way offers distinct dialectic and theoretical advantages, promising to help overcome some obstacles in the current debate surrounding ‘responsibility gaps’.","PeriodicalId":47057,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"AI and Responsibility: No Gap, but Abundance\",\"authors\":\"Maximilian Kiener\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/japp.12765\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The best‐performing AI systems, such as deep neural networks, tend to be the ones that are most difficult to control and understand. For this reason, scholars worry that the use of AI would lead to so‐called <jats:italic>responsibility gaps</jats:italic>, that is, situations in which no one is morally responsible for the harm caused by AI, because no one satisfies the so‐called control condition and epistemic condition of moral responsibility. In this article, I acknowledge that there is a significant challenge around responsibility and AI. Yet I don't think that this challenge is best captured in terms of a responsibility <jats:italic>gap</jats:italic>. Instead, I argue for the opposite view, namely that there is responsibility <jats:italic>abundance</jats:italic>, that is, a situation in which <jats:italic>numerous</jats:italic> agents are responsible for the harm caused by AI, and that the challenge comes from the difficulties of dealing with such abundance in practice. I conclude by arguing that reframing the challenge in this way offers distinct dialectic and theoretical advantages, promising to help overcome some obstacles in the current debate surrounding ‘responsibility gaps’.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47057,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Philosophy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12765\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12765","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

表现最好的人工智能系统,如深度神经网络,往往是最难以控制和理解的系统。为此,学者们担心人工智能的使用会导致所谓的责任缺口,即没有人对人工智能造成的伤害负道德责任,因为没有人满足道德责任的所谓控制条件和认识论条件。在本文中,我承认围绕责任与人工智能存在着巨大的挑战。然而,我并不认为用责任鸿沟来概括这一挑战是最合适的。相反,我主张相反的观点,即存在责任丰裕的情况,即众多代理人对人工智能造成的伤害负有责任,而挑战来自于在实践中处理这种丰裕情况的困难。最后,我认为以这种方式重构挑战具有独特的辩证法和理论优势,有望帮助克服当前围绕 "责任差距 "的辩论中的一些障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
AI and Responsibility: No Gap, but Abundance
The best‐performing AI systems, such as deep neural networks, tend to be the ones that are most difficult to control and understand. For this reason, scholars worry that the use of AI would lead to so‐called responsibility gaps, that is, situations in which no one is morally responsible for the harm caused by AI, because no one satisfies the so‐called control condition and epistemic condition of moral responsibility. In this article, I acknowledge that there is a significant challenge around responsibility and AI. Yet I don't think that this challenge is best captured in terms of a responsibility gap. Instead, I argue for the opposite view, namely that there is responsibility abundance, that is, a situation in which numerous agents are responsible for the harm caused by AI, and that the challenge comes from the difficulties of dealing with such abundance in practice. I conclude by arguing that reframing the challenge in this way offers distinct dialectic and theoretical advantages, promising to help overcome some obstacles in the current debate surrounding ‘responsibility gaps’.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
71
期刊最新文献
The Story of Romantic Love and Polyamory Is the Gender Pension Gap Fair? AI and Responsibility: No Gap, but Abundance Responsibility Gaps and Technology: Old Wine in New Bottles? Parental Imprisonment and Children's Right Not to be Separated from Their Parents
×
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