Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Can AI determine its own future?

  • Open Forum
  • Published:
AI & SOCIETY Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article investigates the capacity of artificial intelligence (AI) systems to claim the right to self-determination while exploring the prerequisites for individuals or entities to exercise control over their own destinies. The paper delves into the concept of autonomy as a fundamental aspect of self-determination, drawing a distinction between moral and legal autonomy and emphasizing the pivotal role of dignity in establishing legal autonomy. The analysis examines various theories of dignity, with a particular focus on Hannah Arendt’s perspective. Additionally, the article discusses the influence of societal perceptions on AI, illustrating how AI's interactions in social contexts can shape public attitudes and compliance with legal rights. Ultimately, the article emphasizes the necessity of a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between AI, dignity, and the legal framework governing human rights, stressing the significance of recognizing dignity and societal acceptance in determining AI’s right to self-determination.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://cajundiscordian.medium.com/is-lamda-sentient-an-interview-ea64d916d917.

  2. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-61784011.

  3. "Dignity, n.". OED Online. March 2023. Oxford University Press. https://www-oedcom.chipublib.idm.oclc.org/view/Entry/52653?redirectedFrom=dignity (accessed June 13, 2023).

  4. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/dignity_n?tab=meaning_and_use#6780048; https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dignity; https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/dignity (accessed October 25, 2023).

  5. https://web.archive.org/web/20081006004312/http://www.ekah.admin.ch/en/topics/dignity-ofcreation/index.html.

  6. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.

  7. https://www.coe.int/en/web/compass/the-international-covenant-on-civil-and-political-rights.

  8. https://www.ojaivalleynews.com/news/government/elephants-get-bodily-liberty-in-ojai/article_a0028508-5e72-11ee-ae0b-47cbbffa8472.html.

  9. In the regulation adopted by the Ojai City Council, bodily liberty is defined as the "freedom from forced confinement, extraneous control, or restricted choice imposed by any person, and entails the ability to act autonomously without restraint, coercion, or control by any person.".

  10. https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2022-16019.

  11. Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act, https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ72/PLAW-116publ72.pdf.

  12. Universal Declaration of Animal Rigths 2018, https://www.fondation-droit-animal.org/la-fondation/declaration-des-droits-de-lanimal/declaration-of-animal-rights-en/.

  13. Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare, https://www.worldanimalprotection.ca/sites/default/files/media/ca_-_en_files/case_for_a_udaw_tcm22-8305.pdf.

References

  • Affolter K (2006) Die Aufwertung der Selbstbestimmung im neuen Erwachsenenschutzrecht

  • Alpaydin E (2020) Introduction to machine learning. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreotta AJ (2021) The hard problem of AI rights. AI Soc 36(1):19–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arendt H (1968) Totalitarianism: part three of the origins of totalitarianism. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Arendt H (1970) On violence/Hannah Arendt. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Orlando

    Google Scholar 

  • Arendt H, Canovan M (1998) The human condition/by Hannah Arendt; introduction by Margaret Canovan, 2nd edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Atcı İ (2022) İslâm ve Diğer İlâhî Dinlerde Varlık Kategorisinde İnsan Onuru. Pamukkale Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 9/1, pp 210–236. https://doi.org/10.17859/pauifd.1101400

  • Balibar É (2007) (De) constructing the human as human institution: a reflection on the coherence of Hannah Arendt’s practical philosophy. Soc Res 74:727–738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, C. (2012). Between politics and law: Hannah Arendt and the subject of rights. In M. Goldoni & C. McCorkindale (Eds.), Hannah Arendt and the Law (pp. 307–320)

  • Bayefsky R (2013) Dignity, honour, and human rights: Kant’s perspective. Poli Theory 41(6):809–837

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benhabib S (2003) The reluctant modernism of Hannah Arendt. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham

    Google Scholar 

  • Benhabib S (2004) The rights of others: aliens, residents, and citizens, vol 5. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Benhabib S (2013) Dignity in adversity: human rights in troubled times. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertolini A, Episcopo F (2022) Robots and AI as legal subjects? Disentangling the ontological and functional perspective. Front Robot AI 9:842213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birmingham P (2006) Hannah Arendt and human rights: the predicament of common responsibility. Indiana University Press, Bloomington

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bognetti G (2005) The concept of human dignity in European and US constitutionalism, w: European and US constitutionalism, red. G. Nolte, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Büchler A (2017) Reproduktive Autonomie und Selbstbestimmung. Dimensionen, Umfang und Grenzen an den Anfängen menschlichen Lebens. Helbing Lichtenhahn

  • Campbell L (2017) Kant, autonomy and bioethics. Ethics Med Public Health 3(3):381–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemep.2017.05.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cicero D, Miller W (1968) De officiis, with an English translation by Walter Miller. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter J (2013) The quiet professional: an investigation of US military explosive ordnance disposal personnel interactions with everyday field robots. Doctoral dissertation

  • Clark DL (2001) Kant’s aliens: the anthropology and its others. CR New Centen Rev 1(2):201–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coeckelbergh M (2014) The moral standing of machines: towards a relational and non-Cartesian moral hermeneutics. Philos Technol 27:61–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coeckelbergh M (2022) Three responses to anthropomorphism in social robotics: towards a critical, relational, and hermeneutic approach. Int J Soc Robot 14(10):2049–2061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coghlan, S. An irreducible understanding of animal dignity. Journal of Social Philosophy. https://doi.org/10.1111/josp.12543

  • Cohan JL (1996) Rights, citizenship, and the modern form of the social: dilemmas of the Arentian Republicanism. Constellations 3:164–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cupp RL Jr (2017) Cognitively impaired humans, intelligent animals, and legal personhood. Fla Law Rev 69:465

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling K (2016) Extending legal protection to social robots: the effects of anthropomorphism, empathy, and violent behavior towards robotic objects. In: Calo R, Froomkin AM, Kerr I (eds) Robot law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 213–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwall S (2008) Kant on respect, dignity, and the duty of respect. In: Betzler M (ed) Kant’s ethics of virtue. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 175–199

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • De Graaf MM, Allouch SB, Klamer T (2015) Sharing a life with Harvey: exploring the acceptance of and relationship-building with a social robot. Comput Hum Behav 43:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Graaf MM, Hindriks FA, Hindriks KV (2021) Who wants to grant robots rights?. In: Companion of the 2021 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, pp 38–46

  • Douzinas C (2000) The end of human rights: critical legal thought at the turn of the century/Costas Douzinas. Hart Pub.

  • Danaher, John (2020) Welcoming robots into the moral circle: a defence of ethical behaviourism. Science and engineering ethics 26(4): 2023-2049.

  • Enders C (2010) The Right to have Rights: The concept of human dignity in German Basic Law. Revista De Estudos Constitucionais Hermenêutica e Teoria Do Direito (RECHTD) 2(1):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fateh-Moghadam B (2018) Selbstbestimmung im biotechnischen Zeitalter. Basler Juristische Mitteilungen 4:205–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Fussell SR, Kiesler S, Setlock LD, Yew V (2008) How people anthropomorphize robots. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction, pp 145–152

  • Ganner M (2007) Selbstbestimmung im Alter Privatautonomie für alte und pflegebedürftige Menschen in Österreich und Deutschland. Springer, Vienna, p 31. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-211-30869-5_5

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gellers JC (2020) Rights for robots: artificial intelligence, animal and environmental law. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gellers J (2022) Everything you know about the Lemoine-LaMDA affair is wrong. IN: CAN AN AI BE SENTIENT? Multiple perspectives on sentience and on the potential ethical implications of the rise of sentient AI, 27–29. https://globalethics.ai/http-globalethics-ai-wp-content-uploads-2022-10-goffi-momcilovic-et-al-2022-can-an-ai-be-sentient-1-pdf/

  • Gellers, J. C., & Gunkel, D. J. (2023). Artificial intelligence and international human rights law: Implications for humans and technology in the 21st century and beyond. In Handbook on the politics and governance of big data and artificial intelligence (pp. 430–455). Edward Elgar Publishing.

  • Gervais, D. J. (2023). Towards an effective transnational regulation of AI. AI & society, 38(1), 391–410.

  • Gibert M, Martin D (2021) In search of the moral status of AI: why sentience is a strong argument. AI Soc. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00146-021-01179-Z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunkel DJ (2007) Thinking otherwise: ethics, technology and other subjects. Ethics Inf Technol 9:165–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunkel, D. J. (2012). The machine question: Critical perspectives on AI, robots, and ethics. MIT Press.

  • Gündogdu A (2014) Rightlessness in an age of rights: Hannah Arendt and the contemporary struggles of migrants. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (2012) The concept of human dignity and the realistic utopia of human rights. In: Corradetti C (ed) Philosophical dimensions of human rights. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2376-4_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hills A (2005) Rational nature as the source of value. Kantian Rev 10:60–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hromiak M (2020) A new charter of ethics and rights of artificial consciousness in a human world. arXiv preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.12019

  • Hundert EJ (1997) The European enlightenment and the history of the SELF. In: Rewriting the self: histories from the renaissance to the present, pp 72–83

  • Kaczor CR (2013) A Defense of Dignity: Creating Life, Destroying Life, and Protecting the Rights of Conscience. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.

  • Kant I (2006) Kant: anthropology from a pragmatic point of view. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant I (2020) Groundwork of the metaphysic of morals. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kant I, Gregor M (1991) The Metaphysics of morals introduction, translation, and notes by Mary Gregor. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kato S (1995) Can robots be" Self-Determining’’? Studies 1:71–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Keskin D (2022) Medeni Hukuk Açısından Bizzat Karar Verme Hakkı. Adalet Yayınevi, Ankara

    Google Scholar 

  • Kymlicka W (2018) Human rights without human supremacism. Can J Philos 48(6):763–792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolnai A (1976) Dignity. Philosophy 51(197):251–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krämer C (2018) 9 Menschenwürde–Flucht–Medien. Reflexionen zu Ziffer 1 des deutschen Pressekodexes im Kontext der Medienberichterstattung über Flucht. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, pp 151–162

  • Krämer C (2020) Can robots have dignity? In: Ddd V (ed) Artificial intelligence. Leiden, Brill | mentis. https://doi.org/10.30965/9783957437488_016

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Krämer L (2023) Rights of nature in Europe: the Spanish Lagoon Mar Menor becomes a legal person. J Eur Environ Plan Law 20(1):5–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurki V (2021) Active but not independent: the legal personhood of children. Griffith Law Rev 30(3):395–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lebech M (2004) What is Human Dignity? Maynooth Philosophical Papers 2:59–69.

  • Levy D (2009) The ethical treatment of artificially conscious robots. Int J Soc Robot 1(3):209–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, S. M. (2020). The Moral Status and Rights of Artificial Intelligence. In S. Matthew Liao (Ed.), Ethics of artificial intelligence (pp. 1-28). Oxford University Press, New York.

  • Macklin R (2003) Dignity is a useless concept. BMJ 327(7429):1419–1420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mamak K (2022) Humans, Neanderthals, robots and rights. Ethics Inf Technol 24(3):33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mamak K (2024) Toward a universal declaration of robot rights? Building robots into global diversity. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376313478_Toward_a_Universal_Declaration_of_Robot_Rights_Building_robots_into_global_diversity

  • Martínez E, Winter C (2021) Protecting sentient artificial intelligence: a survey of lay intuitions on standing, personhood, and general legal protection. Front Robot AI 8:367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menke, C. (2014). Dignity as the right to have rights: Human dignity in Hannah Arendt. In M. Düwell, J. Braarvig, R. Brownsword, & D. Mieth (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Human Dignity: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, pp. 332–342.

  • Meyer M (2001) The simple dignity of sentient life: speciesism and human dignity. J Soc Philos 32(2):115–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mill JS (2015) On liberty, utilitarianism, and other essays. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Miller LF (2015) Granting automata human rights: challenge to a basis of full-rights privilege. Hum Rights Rev 16:369–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moyn S (2010) The last utopia: human rights in history. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Musyoka W (2006) Law of succession. LawAfrica, Nairobi

    Google Scholar 

  • Norrie K (2009) Family law, 2nd edn. Dundee University Press, Dundee

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, M. (2001). The right to education. In A. Eide, C. Krause, & A. Rosas (Eds.), Economic, social and cultural rights (pp. 303–326). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill | Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047433866_018

  • Nussbaum MC (2007) Frontiers of justice: disability, nationality, species membership. Frontiers of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum MC (2023) Justice for animals: our collective responsibility. Simon and Schuster. Brill | Nijhoff, Leiden. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047433866_018

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nyholm S (2020) Humans and robots: ethics, agency, and anthropomorphism. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham

    Google Scholar 

  • Önder M (2015) Kur’an ve Sünnette İnsan Onuruna Eğitim Açısından Yaklaşım. Amasya Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 4:37–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinker S (2008) The stupidity of dignity. New Repub 28(2008):28–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Plous S (1993) The role of animals in human society. J Soc Issues 49(1):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen M (2012) Dignity: its history and meaning. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Salzman L (2010) Guardianship for persons with mental illness-a legal and appropriate alternative. Louis UJ Health Law Pol’y 4:279

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandewall E (2021) Ethics, human rights, the intelligent robot, and its subsystem for moral beliefs. Int J Soc Robot 13(4):557–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sensen O (2012) Introduction. In: Sensen O (ed) Kant on moral autonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 112. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511792489.001

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schaap A (2011) Enacting the right to have rights: Jacques Rancière’s critique of Hannah Arendt. Eur J Polit Theory 10(1):22–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder D (2008) Dignity: two riddles and four concepts. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 17(2):230–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder D (2012) Human rights and human dignity: an appeal to separate the conjoined twins. Ethical Theory Moral Pract 15:323–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney P (2022) Why indirect harms do not support social robot rights. Mind Mach 32(4):735–749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Studdert D, Walkerdine V, Studdert D, Walkerdine V (2016) The web of relations. Rethinking Community Research: Inter-relationality, Communal Being and Commonality, pp 95–125

  • Tarbet DW (1968) The fabric of metaphor in Kant’s critique of pure reason. J Hist Philos 6(3):257–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tavani HT (2018) Can social robots qualify for moral consideration? Reframing the question about robot rights. Information 9(4):73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor RS (2005) Kantian personal autonomy. Polit Theory 33(5):602–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tigard D (2023) On respect for robots. ROBONOMICS J Autom Econ 4:37–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Tunç H (2019) Türk Anayasa Hukuku. Gazi Kitapevi

  • Turkle S (2011) Alone together why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldron J (2012) How law protects dignity. Camb Law J 71(1):200222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh T (2017) Are all your worries about Artificial Intelligence wrong?. https://sciencenordic.com/researcher-zone-robots-science-and-cocktails/are-all-your-worriesabout-artificial-intelligence-wrong/1443769

  • Widmer CL (2010) Urteilsunfähigkeit, Vertretung und Selbstbestimmunginsbesondere: Patientenverfügung und Vorsorgeauftrag. Schulthess

  • Wise SM (2012) Nonhuman rights to personhood. Pace Envtl Law Rev 30:i

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood AW (1999) Kant’s ethical thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wright R (2019) The constitutional rights of advanced robots (and of human beings). Arkansas Law Rev 71(3):613–646

    Google Scholar 

  • Yılmaz S (2017) Kaybolan Anlamı Ararken: Arendt’in Düşüncesinde Öznellik. Mülkiye Dergisi 41(4):29–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Yousef N (2004) Historyated cases: the anxieties of autonomy in enlightenment philosophy and romantic literature. Cornell University Press, Ithaca

    Google Scholar 

  • Zerilli D, Danaher J, Maclaurin J, Gavaghan C, Knott A, Liddicoat J, Noorman ME (2021) A citizen’s guide to artificial intelligence. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zuolo F (2016) Dignity and animals. Does it make sense to apply the concept of dignity to all sentient beings? Eth Theory Moral Pract 19:1117–1130

    Article  Google Scholar 

Online Resources

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey [Grant No. 1059B192202011] under the 2219-International Postdoctoral Research Fellowship Program for Turkish Citizens.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Civil Law Department, Faculty of Law, Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University, Ankara, Turkey

    Aybike Tunç

Authors
  1. Aybike Tunç
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aybike Tunç.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tunç, A. Can AI determine its own future?. AI & Soc (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-01892-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-01892-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation