On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Russell Standish <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > What are the minimum requirements to program agency? It seems to be, if a program cannot learn/alter itself, it cannot be held responsible, for it is doing only what it was programmed to do. Jason -- 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.
