监管可信的自主系统:探索利益相关者对责任的看法

IF 1.3 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW Journal of Law and Society Pub Date : 2024-10-10 DOI:10.1111/jols.12501
LOUISE HATHERALL, NAYHA SETHI
{"title":"监管可信的自主系统:探索利益相关者对责任的看法","authors":"LOUISE HATHERALL,&nbsp;NAYHA SETHI","doi":"10.1111/jols.12501","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The proliferation of autonomous and semi-autonomous systems (AS) poses important and pressing regulatory challenges. Underpinning these is the recognition that many different stakeholders will need to trust systems to ensure their effective adoption and implementation. However, research on stakeholder perspectives is lacking, and assessing trustworthiness is difficult due to ‘responsibility gaps’ where it is unclear where responsibility for harms arising from AS ought to lie. Bridging these gaps is important because holding one another responsible is how social trust is maintained, and trust is vital to unlocking the promise that AS hold. This article considers how the concept of answerability could provide a useful framework for boosting the trustworthiness of AS. We present findings from a series of stakeholder interviews identifying what answers different stakeholders need to trust AS in health, finance, and government applications, and consider the implications of our research for current proposals for regulating AS in the United Kingdom and the European Union.</p>","PeriodicalId":51544,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Society","volume":"51 4","pages":"586-609"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jols.12501","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Regulating for trustworthy autonomous systems: exploring stakeholder perspectives on answerability\",\"authors\":\"LOUISE HATHERALL,&nbsp;NAYHA SETHI\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jols.12501\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The proliferation of autonomous and semi-autonomous systems (AS) poses important and pressing regulatory challenges. Underpinning these is the recognition that many different stakeholders will need to trust systems to ensure their effective adoption and implementation. However, research on stakeholder perspectives is lacking, and assessing trustworthiness is difficult due to ‘responsibility gaps’ where it is unclear where responsibility for harms arising from AS ought to lie. Bridging these gaps is important because holding one another responsible is how social trust is maintained, and trust is vital to unlocking the promise that AS hold. This article considers how the concept of answerability could provide a useful framework for boosting the trustworthiness of AS. We present findings from a series of stakeholder interviews identifying what answers different stakeholders need to trust AS in health, finance, and government applications, and consider the implications of our research for current proposals for regulating AS in the United Kingdom and the European Union.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51544,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Law and Society\",\"volume\":\"51 4\",\"pages\":\"586-609\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jols.12501\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Law and Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jols.12501\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and Society","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jols.12501","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自主和半自主系统(AS)的激增带来了重要而紧迫的监管挑战。这些挑战的基础是认识到许多不同的利益相关者需要信任系统,以确保其有效采用和实施。然而,有关利益相关者观点的研究还很缺乏,而且由于 "责任差距",评估可信度也很困难。弥合这些差距非常重要,因为相互承担责任是维持社会信任的方式,而信任对于释放人工智能所带来的希望至关重要。本文探讨了 "责任 "概念如何为提高行政系统的可信度提供一个有用的框架。我们介绍了一系列利益相关者访谈的结果,这些访谈确定了在卫生、金融和政府应用中不同利益相关者信任人工智能所需要的答案,并考虑了我们的研究对英国和欧盟当前人工智能监管建议的影响。
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
Regulating for trustworthy autonomous systems: exploring stakeholder perspectives on answerability

The proliferation of autonomous and semi-autonomous systems (AS) poses important and pressing regulatory challenges. Underpinning these is the recognition that many different stakeholders will need to trust systems to ensure their effective adoption and implementation. However, research on stakeholder perspectives is lacking, and assessing trustworthiness is difficult due to ‘responsibility gaps’ where it is unclear where responsibility for harms arising from AS ought to lie. Bridging these gaps is important because holding one another responsible is how social trust is maintained, and trust is vital to unlocking the promise that AS hold. This article considers how the concept of answerability could provide a useful framework for boosting the trustworthiness of AS. We present findings from a series of stakeholder interviews identifying what answers different stakeholders need to trust AS in health, finance, and government applications, and consider the implications of our research for current proposals for regulating AS in the United Kingdom and the European Union.

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
2.00
自引率
15.40%
发文量
59
期刊介绍: Established as the leading British periodical for Socio-Legal Studies The Journal of Law and Society offers an interdisciplinary approach. It is committed to achieving a broad international appeal, attracting contributions and addressing issues from a range of legal cultures, as well as theoretical concerns of cross- cultural interest. It produces an annual special issue, which is also published in book form. It has a widely respected Book Review section and is cited all over the world. Challenging, authoritative and topical, the journal appeals to legal researchers and practitioners as well as sociologists, criminologists and other social scientists.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information ‘On a knife's edge’: medical, police, and legal responses to self-harming protesters It could be my son! ‘Himpathy’ and the male fear defence in rape trials ‘Worthy survivors’ of domestic violence in the eyes of the Beijing courts When less is less: the complexities of growth and the degrowth company
×
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