誰該為機器人負責？

This month, the European Parliament voted in favour of a resolution to create a new ethical-legal framework for robots. The Commission does not have to follow the parliament’s recommendations, but if it refuses it will have to explain why.

歐洲議會(European Parliament)本月通過一項決議，其內(nèi)容是建立針對機器人的新的倫理-法律框架。歐盟委員會不必遵循前者的建議，但如果拒絕，它必須解釋原因。

The basic idea is reasonable. Today, we spend increasing amounts of time in the infosphere. In this digital ocean, robots are the real natives: we scuba dive, they are like fish. Robots of all kinds will multiply and proliferate, making the infosphere even more their own element. Add artificial intelligence, smartphones, cloud computing, big data, machine learning and the internet of things, and it becomes obvious that there is no time to waste.

基本理念是合理的。當今，我們在信息空間花費的時間日益增多。在這個數(shù)字海洋里，機器人才是真正的本地人：我們戴著水肺潛水，而它們就像魚一樣。各種各樣的機器人將會迅速增加和繁殖，使信息空間在更大程度上成為它們?nèi)玺~得水的環(huán)境。再加上人工智能、智能手機、云計算、大數(shù)據(jù)、機器學習和物聯(lián)網(wǎng)，顯然沒有時間可以浪費了。

We are laying down foundations for the mature information societies of the near future, so we need new ethical frameworks to determine which forms of artificial agency we are happy to see flourishing in them. Against this background, the EU’s initiative provokes mixed feelings: excitement at the aspiration but disappointment at the implementation. There is too much fantasy and too little realism.

我們正在為不久的將來的成熟信息社會奠定基礎(chǔ)，因此我們需要新的倫理框架來確定：我們樂于看到什么形式的人工能動性在那樣的社會綻放?在這樣的背景下，歐盟的倡議讓人喜憂參半：既有對抱負的激動，也有對實施的失望?；孟胩?，現(xiàn)實太少。

Consider two key issues: jobs and responsibilities. Robots replace human workers. Retraining unemployed people was never easy, but it is more challenging now that technological disruption is spreading so rapidly, widely and unpredictably. There will be many new forms of employment in other corners of the infosphere — think of how many people have opened virtual shops on eBay. But new and different skills will be needed. More education and a universal basic income may mitigate the impact of robotics on the labour market.

想想兩個關(guān)鍵問題：工作崗位和責任。機器人取代人類勞動者。重新培訓失業(yè)人員從來都不是一件容易的事情，而隨著科技造成的擾亂如此迅速蔓延、影響廣泛和不可預測，這變得更具挑戰(zhàn)性。在信息空間的其他角落將出現(xiàn)許多新的就業(yè)形式——想想有多少人在eBay上開了虛擬商店。但人們將需要新的、不同的技能。增加教育機會和實行全民基本收入或許可以緩解機器人對勞動市場的影響。

Society will need more resources. Unfortunately, robots do not pay taxes. And more profitable companies are unlikely to pay enough extra taxes to compensate for the loss of revenues. So robots cause a higher demand for taxpayers’ money and a lower supply of it.

社會將需要更多資源。遺憾的是，機器人不交稅。而比較盈利的企業(yè)不太可能繳納足夠多的額外稅款來補償財政收入的損失。也就是說，機器人帶來對納稅人資金的更高需求，卻也帶來更少的稅收收入。

How can one get out of this tailspin? The report correctly identifies the problem. But its original recommendation of a robo tax on companies that employ robots — a proposal that did not survive into the final text approved the parliament — may not be feasible, for what counts as a robot? It may also work as a disincentive to innovation.

如何擺脫這種困境?該報告正確地界定了這個難題。但其原本提出的方案(對使用機器人的企業(yè)征收“機器人稅”;該提案未能進入議會通過的最終文本)或許并不可行，因為什么才算機器人呢?這還可能阻礙創(chuàng)新。

And where should we allocate legal responsibilities? If my robot breaks my neighbour’s window, who is responsible? The company who produced it, the shop who sold it, I the owner, or the robot itself — if it has become completely autonomous through a learning process, capable of intelligent action? The report suggests a “specific legal status” for more advanced robots, as “electronic persons responsible for making good any damage they may cause”, which has been approved in the final document. So companies may not pay a robo tax and may not even be liable for some kinds of robots. This is a mistake.

此外，我們?nèi)绾畏峙浞韶熑?如果我的機器人打破了我鄰居的窗戶，誰該為此負責?生產(chǎn)這臺機器人的公司、銷售這臺機器人的商店、我這個所有者、還是機器人自己——如果它通過學習過程，變得完全自主，能夠做出智能行動?報告建議，對比較先進的機器人賦予一種“特殊的法律地位”，將它們視為“有責任賠償它們可能引起的任何損失的電子人”，這一點在最終的文件得到認可。這樣一來，企業(yè)或許無需繳納機器人稅，甚至可能無需對某些機器人承擔賠償責任。這是一個錯誤。

There is no need to adopt science fiction solutions to solve practical problems of legal liability. Jurisprudence already provides a solution.

沒必要用科幻小說里的解決方案來解決法律責任歸屬的實際問題。法理學已經(jīng)提供了一個解決方案。

If robots become as good as human agents — think of the droids in Star Wars — we can adapt rules as old as Roman law, in which the owner of enslaved persons is responsible for any damage. As the Romans knew, attributing some kind of legal personality to robots (or slaves) would relieve those who should control them of their responsibilities. And how would rights be attributed? Do robots have the right to own data? Should they be “liberated”?

如果機器人變得像人類行為人一樣優(yōu)秀——想想《星球大戰(zhàn)》(Star Wars)里的機器人——那么我們可以借鑒羅馬法這樣的古老規(guī)則。羅馬法規(guī)定奴隸的主人要對奴隸造成的任何損壞負責。正如羅馬人看到的，將某種法律人格賦予機器人(或者奴隸)會讓那些應(yīng)該控制它們(他們)的人逃脫責任。而且，權(quán)利又該如何歸屬?機器人有權(quán)利擁有數(shù)據(jù)嗎?它們應(yīng)該被“解放”嗎?

It may be fun to speculate about such questions, but it is also distracting and irresponsible, given the pressing issues at hand. We are stuck in the wrong conceptual framework. The debate is not about robots but about us, and the kind of infosphere we want to create. We need less science fiction and more philosophy.

圍繞這些問題進行猜測也許很有趣，但考慮到當前面臨的迫切問題，這也是讓人分心和不負責任的。我們陷入了錯誤的概念框架。這場辯論與機器人無關(guān)，而與我們有關(guān)，與我們想要創(chuàng)建什么樣的信息空間有關(guān)。我們需要少一些科幻小說，多一些哲學。

The writer is professor of philosophy and ethics of information at the University of Oxford

本文作者是牛津大學(University of Oxford)哲學和信息倫理學教授