Who Is Responsible for Killer Robots? Autonomous Weapons, Group Agency, and the Military‐Industrial Complex.
There has recently been increasing interest in the possibility and ethics of lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS), which would combine sophisticated AI with machinery capable of deadly force. One objection to LAWS is that their use will create a troubling responsibility gap, where no human agent...
| Publicado en: | Journal of Applied Philosophy Vol. 38; no. 2; pp. 320 - 335 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Wiley-Blackwell
May2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=150131095&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 150131095 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 02643758 BQ0 jtl: Journal of Applied Philosophy issn: 02643758 maglogo: Y pubinfo: dt: May2021 vid: 38 iid: 2 pid: 480 pub: Wiley-Blackwell artinfo: ui: 150131095 10.1111/japp.12469 ppf: 320 ppct: 15 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P size: 131KB tig: atl: Who Is Responsible for Killer Robots? Autonomous Weapons, Group Agency, and the Military‐Industrial Complex. aug: au: Taylor, Isaac affil: Department of Philosophy, Stockholm University, Stockholm 10691, , Sweden su: Moral development Lethal autonomous weapons Artificial intelligence Conscientious objection sug: subj: Moral development Lethal autonomous weapons Artificial intelligence Conscientious objection ab: There has recently been increasing interest in the possibility and ethics of lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS), which would combine sophisticated AI with machinery capable of deadly force. One objection to LAWS is that their use will create a troubling responsibility gap, where no human agent can properly be held accountable for the outcomes that they create. While some authors have attempted to show that individual agents can, in fact, be responsible for the behaviour of LAWS in various circumstances, this will not be possible in all cases. This article argues, however, that by assigning responsibilities to group agents operating within the military‐industrial complex, as well as the military‐industrial complex as a whole, we may be able to close the responsibility gap, or at least reduce its costs. Insofar as the potential for responsibility gaps poses an ethical barrier to the development and deployment of LAWS, this argument, if sound, may show their use to be morally permissible in a greater range of cases. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Copyright of Journal of Applied Philosophy is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. item: Journal of Applied Philosophy holder: Wiley-Blackwell dt: @attributes: year: 2021 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|