弥合人工智能的责任差距——可以从罗马法律中学到什么?

IF 1 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW Legal Studies Pub Date : 2023-01-18 DOI:10.1017/lst.2022.51
K. Heine, A. Quintavalla
{"title":"弥合人工智能的责任差距——可以从罗马法律中学到什么?","authors":"K. Heine, A. Quintavalla","doi":"10.1017/lst.2022.51","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This paper discusses the accountability gap problem posed by artificial intelligence. After sketching out the accountability gap problem we turn to ancient Roman law and scrutinise how slave-run businesses dealt with the accountability gap through an indirect agency of slaves. Our analysis shows that Roman law developed a heterogeneous framework in which multiple legal remedies coexist to accommodate the various competing interests of owners and contracting third parties. Moreover, Roman law shows that addressing the various emerging interests had been a continuous and gradual process of allocating risks among different stakeholders. The paper concludes that these two findings are key for contemporary discussions on how to regulate artificial intelligence.","PeriodicalId":46121,"journal":{"name":"Legal Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bridging the accountability gap of artificial intelligence – what can be learned from Roman law?\",\"authors\":\"K. Heine, A. Quintavalla\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/lst.2022.51\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This paper discusses the accountability gap problem posed by artificial intelligence. After sketching out the accountability gap problem we turn to ancient Roman law and scrutinise how slave-run businesses dealt with the accountability gap through an indirect agency of slaves. Our analysis shows that Roman law developed a heterogeneous framework in which multiple legal remedies coexist to accommodate the various competing interests of owners and contracting third parties. Moreover, Roman law shows that addressing the various emerging interests had been a continuous and gradual process of allocating risks among different stakeholders. The paper concludes that these two findings are key for contemporary discussions on how to regulate artificial intelligence.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46121,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Legal Studies\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Legal Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/lst.2022.51\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/lst.2022.51","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文讨论了人工智能带来的责任缺口问题。在勾勒出问责制差距问题后,我们转向古罗马法律,仔细研究奴隶经营的企业如何通过奴隶的间接代理来处理问责制差距。我们的分析表明,罗马法形成了一个异质的框架,在这个框架中,多种法律补救措施共存,以适应业主和合同第三方的各种竞争利益。此外,罗马法律表明,解决各种新兴利益是在不同利益攸关方之间分配风险的一个持续而渐进的过程。论文的结论是,这两个发现是当代关于如何监管人工智能的讨论的关键。
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
Bridging the accountability gap of artificial intelligence – what can be learned from Roman law?
This paper discusses the accountability gap problem posed by artificial intelligence. After sketching out the accountability gap problem we turn to ancient Roman law and scrutinise how slave-run businesses dealt with the accountability gap through an indirect agency of slaves. Our analysis shows that Roman law developed a heterogeneous framework in which multiple legal remedies coexist to accommodate the various competing interests of owners and contracting third parties. Moreover, Roman law shows that addressing the various emerging interests had been a continuous and gradual process of allocating risks among different stakeholders. The paper concludes that these two findings are key for contemporary discussions on how to regulate artificial intelligence.
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
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
期刊最新文献
Conspiracy! Or, when bad things happen to good litigants in person European human rights law and the legality of sex offence prosecutions based on deception as to gender history Deportation and human rights: the right to respect for private life in MK (Albania) v Minister for Justice and Equality Imprisonment for breach of injunctions: what is happening in the civil courts? Medical negligence and disclosure of alternative treatments
×
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