Mind the gap: responsible robotics and the problem of responsibility
Ethics and Information Technology 22 (4):307-320 (2020)
Abstract
The task of this essay is to respond to the question concerning robots and responsibility—to answer for the way that we understand, debate, and decide who or what is able to answer for decisions and actions undertaken by increasingly interactive, autonomous, and sociable mechanisms. The analysis proceeds through three steps or movements. It begins by critically examining the instrumental theory of technology, which determines the way one typically deals with and responds to the question of responsibility when it involves technology. It then considers three instances where recent innovations in robotics challenge this standard operating procedure by opening gaps in the usual way of assigning responsibility. The innovations considered in this section include: autonomous technology, machine learning, and social robots. The essay concludes by evaluating the three different responses—instrumentalism 2.0, machine ethics, and hybrid responsibility—that have been made in face of these difficulties in an effort to map out the opportunities and challenges of and for responsible robotics.Author's Profile
DOI
10.1007/s10676-017-9428-2
My notes
Similar books and articles
Predicting the Long-Term Effects of Human-Robot Interaction: A Reflection on Responsibility in Medical Robotics. [REVIEW]Edoardo Datteri - 2013 - Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (1):139-160.
The problem of ascribing legal responsibility in the case of robotics.Susanne Beck - 2016 - AI and Society 31 (4):473-481.
The problem of many hands: Climate change as an example.Ibo van de Poel, Jessica Fahlquist, Neelke Doorn, Sjoerd Zwart & Lambèr Royakkers - 2012 - Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (1):49-67.
Responsible computers? A case for ascribing quasi-responsibility to computers independent of personhood or agency.Bernd Carsten Stahl - 2006 - Ethics and Information Technology 8 (4):205-213.
Phenomenal consciousness, collective mentality, and collective moral responsibility.Matthew Baddorf - 2017 - Philosophical Studies 174 (11):2769-2786.
Towards cognitive robotics: Robotics, biology and developmental psychology.Mark Lee, Ulrich Nehmzow & Marcos Rodrigues - 2012 - In David McFarland, Keith Stenning & Maggie McGonigle (eds.), The Complex Mind. Palgrave-Macmillan. pp. 103.
Historical Moral Responsibility: Is The Infinite Regress Problem Fatal?Eric Christian Barnes - 2017 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 98 (4):533-554.
From Killer Machines to Doctrines and Swarms, or Why Ethics of Military Robotics Is not (Necessarily) About Robots.Mark Coeckelbergh - 2011 - Philosophy and Technology 24 (3):269-278.
Analytics
Added to PP
2017-07-21
Downloads
165 (#78,204)
6 months
20 (#55,655)
2017-07-21
Downloads
165 (#78,204)
6 months
20 (#55,655)
Historical graph of downloads
Author's Profile
Citations of this work
Artificial Intelligence, Responsibility Attribution, and a Relational Justification of Explainability.Mark Coeckelbergh - 2020 - Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (4):2051-2068.
Patiency is not a virtue: the design of intelligent systems and systems of ethics.Joanna J. Bryson - 2018 - Ethics and Information Technology 20 (1):15-26.
Techno-optimism: an Analysis, an Evaluation and a Modest Defence.John Danaher - 2022 - Philosophy and Technology 35 (2):1-29.
Tragic Choices and the Virtue of Techno-Responsibility Gaps.John Danaher - 2022 - Philosophy and Technology 35 (2):1-26.
Artificial intelligence and responsibility gaps: what is the problem?Peter Königs - 2022 - Ethics and Information Technology 24 (3):1-11.
References found in this work
Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to the Actor-Network Theory.Bruno Latour - 2005 - Oxford, England and New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.