On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 09:11:34PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote: > At some level, an algorithm cannot be held responsible for its actions > because it was doing the only thing it could do, what it was programmed to > do. At some point between a simplistic algorithm and a human level AI, > however, we seem able to assigning responsibility/culpability. What does an > algorithm minimally have to have before it reaches this point? > > The ability to learn? > Understanding of the consequences of its actions? > Rights that it cares about? > Personhood? >
None of those things are required to assign legal responsibility. For example, a company can be held legally responsible, but a company is not a person, nor is it conscious, nor need it learn (although companies can learn). I think all that is required is a sense of agency, that holding something responsible is sufficient to affect the actions of that agent. If a robot can process the notion of responsibility such that its actions will be affected by it, then yes it can be held responsible regardless of whether any conscious understanding exists. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
