Can Robots have Personal Identity?
Tóm tắt
This article attempts to answer the question of whether robots can have personal identity. In recent years, and due to the numerous and rapid technological advances, the discussion around the ethical implications of Artificial Intelligence, Artificial Agents or simply Robots, has gained great importance. However, this reflection has almost always focused on problems such as the moral status of these robots, their rights, their capabilities or the qualities that these robots should have to support such status or rights. In this paper I want to address a question that has been much less analyzed but which I consider crucial to this discussion on robot ethics: the possibility, or not, that robots have or will one day have personal identity. The importance of this question has to do with the role we normally assign to personal identity as central to morality. After posing the problem and exposing this relationship between identity and morality, I will engage in a discussion with the recent literature on personal identity by showing in what sense one could speak of personal identity in beings such as robots. This is followed by a discussion of some key texts in robot ethics that have touched on this problem, finally addressing some implications and possible objections. I finally give the tentative answer that robots could potentially have personal identity, given other cases and what we empirically know about robots and their foreseeable future.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Alvey R (2021) Robotics in healthcare. Online Journal of Nursing Informatics. Online journal of nursing informatics, vol 25 (2)
Boscarato C (2011) Who is responsible for a robot’s actions? In: van der Berg B, Klaming L (eds) Technologies on the stand: Legal and ethical questions in neuroscience and robotics. Wolfpublisher, pp 383–402
Breazeal C (2003) Toward sociable robots. Robot Auton Syst 42:167–175
Bryson JJ, Diamantis ME, Grant TD (2017) Of, for, and by the people: the legal lacuna of synthetic persons. Artif Intell Law 25:273–291
Calverley DJ (2006) Android science and animal rights, does an analogy exist? Connect Sci 18(4):403–417
Coeckelbergh M (2009) Personal robots, appearance, and human good: a methodological reflection on roboethics. Int J Soc Robot 1(3):217–221
Coeckelbergh M & Faculty of Behavioural, Management Social Sciences (2010) Robot rights? towards a social-relational justification of moral consideration. Ethics Inf Technol 12(3):209–221
Coeckelbergh M (2010) Moral appearances: emotions, robots, and human morality. Ethics Inf Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9221-y
Danaher J (2020) Welcoming Robots into the moral circle: a defence of ethical behaviourism. Sci Eng Ethics 26(4):2023–2049
Darling K, Nandy P, Breazeal C (2015) Empathic concern and the effect of stories in human-robot interaction. In: 2015 24th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), pp 770–775
Dautenhahn K (2003) Roles of robots in human society—implications from research in autism therapy. Robotica 21:443–452
Dautenhahn K et al (2005) What is a robot companion—friend, assistant, or Butler? Intelligent robots and systems. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on in intelligent robots and systems
DeGrazia, D. (2005). Human Identity and Bioethics Cambridge: Cambridge core. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614484
de Grey AD (2004) Escape velocity: why the prospect of extreme human life extension matters now. PLoS Biol 2(6):723–726
Delvaux M (2016) Motion for a European Parliament resolution with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics, (2015/2103(INL))
Gunkel D, Bryson J (2014) Introduction to the special issue on machine morality: the machine as moral agent and patient. Philos Technol 27(1):5–8
Ehring D (2013) Why Parfit did not go far enough. Philos Stud 165(1):133–149
Floridi L (2008) Artificial intelligence’s new frontier: Artificial companions and the fourth revolution. Metaphilosophy, 39(4–5), 651–655
Floridi L, Taddeo M (2018) romans would have denied robots legal personhood. Nature 557(7705):309
Gates B (2007) A robot in every home. Sci Am 296(1):58–65
Hinds PJ, Roberts TL, Jones H (2004) Whose job is it anyway? a study of human-robot interaction in a collaborative task. Hum Comput Interact 19:151–181
Hsu J (2009) Real soldiers love their robot brethren. LiveScience, May 21. http://www.livescience.com/technology/090521-terminator-war.html (accessed March, 14, 2021)
Hubbard FP (2011) Do androids dream? personhood and intelligent artifacts. Temp. L. Rev. 83:405–474
Ivaldi, S, Lyubova, N, Gerardeaux-Viret, D, Droniou, A, Anzalone, SM, Chetouani, M, Sigaud, O. (2012). Perception and human interaction for developmental learning of objects and affordances. In: 2012 12th IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoid robots (Humanoids 2012), pp 248–254
Kahn P, Ishiguro H, Friedman B, Kanda T (2006) What is a human? toward psychological benchmarks in the field of human-robot interaction. In: ROMAN 2006 special session: Psychological benchmarks of human-robot interaction.
Lepuschitz W, Merdan M, Koppensteiner G, Balogh R, Obdržálek D (2021) Robotics in education: methodologies and technologies. In: Advances in intelligent systems and computing, vol 1316. Cham, Switzerland
Lévinas E (1987) Time and the other and additional essays. Duquesne University Press, Pittsburgh, PA
Levy D (2012) The ethics of robot prostitutes. In: Lin P, Abney K, Bekey G (eds) Robot ethics: the ethical and social implications of robotics (Intelligent robotics and autonomous agents). MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass
Lin P, Abney K, Bekey G (2012) Robot ethics: the ethical and social implications of robotics (Intelligent robotics and autonomous agents). MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Lindemann H (2002) What child is this? Hastings Cent Rep 32(6):29–38
Lindeman H (2009) Holding on to Edmund: the relational work of identity. In: Lindemann H, Verkerk M, Walker M (eds) Naturalized bioethics: toward responsible knowing and practice. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 65–79
Locke J (1690/1975) An essay concerning human understanding. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Macdorman K, Cowley S (2006) Long-term relationships as a benchmark for robot personhood. In: ROMAN 2006—The 15th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, pp 378–383
Miller LF (2015) Granting automata human rights: challenge to a basis of full-rights privilege. Hum Rights Rev 16:369–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/sl12142-015-0387-x
Nass C, Moon Y (2000) Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J Soc Issues 56(1):81–103
Nichols S, Bruno M (2010) Intuitions about personal identity: an empirical study. Philos Psychol 23:293–312
Nielsen J, Lund HH (2008) Modular robotics as a tool for education and entertainment. Comput Hum Behav 24(2):234–248
Olson E (1997) The human animal: personal identity without psychology. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Parfit D (1984) Reasons and persons. Clarendon, Oxford
Pattison G (2007) Seeing things: deepening relations with visual artefacts. SCM Press, London
Prodhan G (2016) Europe’s Robots to Become ‘Electronic Persons’ Under Draft Plan, REUTERS (June 21, 2016), http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-robotics-lawmaking-idUSKCN0Z72AY [https://perma.cc/UH3P-PW5B]
Scharre P (2019) Army of none: Autonomous weapons and the future of war. W. W. Norton & Company, New York
Schechtman M (1996) The constitution of selves. Cornell University Press, Ithaca
Schechtman M (2014) Staying alive: personal identity, practical concerns, and the unity of a life. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Scheutz M (2012) The inherent dangers of unidirectional emotional bonds between humans and social robots. In: Lin P, Abney K, Bekey G (eds) Robot ethics: the ethical and social implications of robotics (Intelligent robotics and autonomous agents). MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass
Schmiljun A (2018) Robot morality: Bertram F Malle’s concept of moral competence. Ethics Prog 8(2):69–79
Sequeira J (2019) Robotics in healthcare: field examples and challenges. In: Advances in experimental medicine and biology, vol 1170. Cham, Switzerland
Setman SA (2021) A willingness to be vulnerable: norm psychology and human–robot relationships. Ethics Inf Technol 23:815–824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-021-09617-8
Shin D (2021) The effects of explainability and causability on perception, trust, and acceptance: implications for explainable AI. Int J Hum Comput Stud 146:102551
Shoemaker D (2007) Personal identity and practical concerns. Mind 116(462):317–357
Singer P (2009) Wired for war: the robotics revolution and conflict in the 21st century. Penguin Press, New York
Sparrow R (2004) The turing triage test. Ethics Inf Technol 6(4):203–213
Sparrow R (2012) Can machines be people? reflections on the turing triage test. In: Lin P, Abney K, Bekey G (eds) Robot ethics: the ethical and social implications of robotics (Intelligent robotics and autonomous agents). MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass
Suzuki Y, Galli L, Ikeda A, Itakura S, Kitazaki M (2015) Measuring empathy for human and robot hand pain using electroencephalography. Sci Rep 5(1):15924
Taylor C (1989) Sources of the self. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Torrance S (2008) Ethics and consciousness in artificial agents. AI & Soc 22(4):495–521
Turkle S (2011) Alone together: why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books, New York, NY
Turner J (2019) Robot rules: regulating artificial intelligence. Cham, Switzerland
van Wynsberghe A, Comes T (2020) Drones in humanitarian contexts, robot ethics, and the human–robot interaction. Ethics Inf Technol 22:43–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-019-09514-1
Veruggio G (2006) EURON roboethics roadmap (release 1.1). EURON Roboethics Atelier, Genua.
Wallach W, Allen C (2009) Moral machines: teaching robots right from wrong. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Walters M, Syrdal L, Dautenhahn D, Te Boekhorst S, Koay K (2008) Avoiding the uncanny valley: robot appearance, personality and consistency of behavior in an attention-seeking home scenario for a robot companion. Auton Robot 24(2):159–178
Wykowska A, Chaminade T, Cheng G (2016) Embodied artificial agents for understanding human social cognition. Philos Trans Biol Sci 371(1693):20150375