Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming increasingly influential in most people’s lives. This raises many philosophical questions. One is what responsibility we have as individuals to guide the development of AI in a desirable direction. More specifically, how should this responsibility be distributed among individuals and between individuals and other actors? We investigate this question from the perspectives of five principles of distribution that dominate the discussion about responsibility in connection with climate change: effectiveness, equality, desert, need, and ability. Since much (...) is already written about these distributions in that context, we believe much can be gained if we can make use of this discussion also in connection with AI. Our most important findings are: (1) Different principles give different answers depending on how they are interpreted but, in many cases, different interpretations and different principles agree and even strengthen each other. If for instance ‘equality-based distribution’ is interpreted in a consequentialist sense, effectiveness, and through it, ability, will play important roles in the actual distributions, but so will an equal distribution as such, since we foresee that an increased responsibility of underrepresented groups will make the risks and benefits of AI more equally distributed. The corresponding reasoning is true for need-based distribution. (2) If we acknowledge that someone has a certain responsibility, we also have to acknowledge a corresponding degree of influence for that someone over the matter in question. (3) Independently of which distribution principle we prefer, ability cannot be dismissed. Ability is not fixed, however and if one of the other distributions is morally required, we are also morally required to increase the ability of those less able to take on the required responsibility. (shrink)

The aim of this chapter is to explore the safety value of implementing Asimov’s Laws of Robotics as a future general framework that humans should obey. Asimov formulated laws to make explicit the safeguards of the robots in his stories: (1) A robot may not injure or harm a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm; (2) A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict (...) with the First Law; (3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. In Asimov’s stories, it is always assumed that the laws are built into the robots to govern the behaviour of the robots. As his stories clearly demonstrate, the Laws can be ambiguous. Moreover, the laws are not very specific. General rules as a guide for robot behaviour may not be a very good method to achieve robot safety – if we expect the robots to follow them. But would it work for humans? In this chapter, we ask whether it would make as much, or more, sense to implement the laws in human legislation with the purpose of governing the behaviour of people or companies that develop, build, market or use AI, embodied in robots or in the form of software, now and in the future. (shrink)

How to make robots safe for humans is intensely debated, within academia as well as in industry, media and on the political arena. Hardly any discussion of the subject fails to mention Isaac Asimov’s three laws of Robotics. We find it curious that a set of fictional laws can have such a strong impact on discussions about a real-world problem and we think this needs to be looked into. The probably most common phrase in connection with robotic and AI ethics, (...) second to “The Three Laws of Robotics”, is “The Trolley Problem”. Asimov’s laws and the Trolley Problem are usually discussed separately but there is a connection in that the Trolley Problem poses a seemingly unsolvable problem for Asimov’s First Law, that states: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. That is, it contains an active and a passive clause and obliges the robot to obey both, while the Trolley Problem forces us to choose between these two options. The object of this paper is therefore to investigate if and how Asimov’s First Law of Robotics can handle a situation where we are forced to choose between the active and the passive clauses of the law. We discuss four possible solutions to the challenge explicitly or implicitly used by Asimov. We conclude that all four suggestions would solve the problem but in different ways and with different implications for other dilemmas in robot ethics. We also conclude that considering the urgency of finding ways to secure a safe coexistence between humans and robots, we should not let the Trolley Problem stand in the way of using the First Law of robotics for this purpose. If we want to use Asimov’s laws for this purpose, we also recommend discarding the active clause of the First Law. (shrink)

The project “A Plurality of Lives” was funded and hosted by the Pufendorf Institute for Advanced Studies at Lund University, Sweden. The aim of the project was to better understand how a second origin of life, either in the form of a discovery of extraterrestrial life, life developed in a laboratory, or machines equipped with abilities previously only ascribed to living beings, will change how we understand and relate to life. Because of the inherently interdisciplinary nature of the project aim, (...) the project took an interdisciplinary approach with a research group made up of 12 senior researchers representing 12 different disciplines. The project resulted in a joint volume, an international symposium, several new projects, and a network of researchers in the field, all continuing to communicate about and advance the aim of the project. (shrink)