誰(shuí)該為機(jī)器人負(fù)責(zé)？

This month, the European Parliament voted in favour of a resolution to create a new ethical-legal framework for robots. The Commission does not have to follow the parliament’s recommendations, but if it refuses it will have to explain why.

歐洲議會(huì)(European Parliament)本月通過(guò)一項(xiàng)決議，其內(nèi)容是建立針對(duì)機(jī)器人的新的倫理-法律框架。歐盟委員會(huì)不必遵循前者的建議，但如果拒絕，它必須解釋原因。

The basic idea is reasonable. Today, we spend increasing amounts of time in the infosphere. In this digital ocean, robots are the real natives: we scuba dive, they are like fish. Robots of all kinds will multiply and proliferate, making the infosphere even more their own element. Add artificial intelligence, smartphones, cloud computing, big data, machine learning and the internet of things, and it becomes obvious that there is no time to waste.

基本理念是合理的。當(dāng)今，我們?cè)谛畔⒖臻g花費(fèi)的時(shí)間日益增多。在這個(gè)數(shù)字海洋里，機(jī)器人才是真正的本地人：我們戴著水肺潛水，而它們就像魚(yú)一樣。各種各樣的機(jī)器人將會(huì)迅速增加和繁殖，使信息空間在更大程度上成為它們?nèi)玺~(yú)得水的環(huán)境。再加上人工智能、智能手機(jī)、云計(jì)算、大數(shù)據(jù)、機(jī)器學(xué)習(xí)和物聯(lián)網(wǎng)，顯然沒(méi)有時(shí)間可以浪費(fèi)了。

We are laying down foundations for the mature information societies of the near future, so we need new ethical frameworks to determine which forms of artificial agency we are happy to see flourishing in them. Against this background, the EU’s initiative provokes mixed feelings: excitement at the aspiration but disappointment at the implementation. There is too much fantasy and too little realism.

我們正在為不久的將來(lái)的成熟信息社會(huì)奠定基礎(chǔ)，因此我們需要新的倫理框架來(lái)確定：我們樂(lè)于看到什么形式的人工能動(dòng)性在那樣的社會(huì)綻放?在這樣的背景下，歐盟的倡議讓人喜憂參半：既有對(duì)抱負(fù)的激動(dòng)，也有對(duì)實(shí)施的失望?；孟胩?，現(xiàn)實(shí)太少。

Consider two key issues: jobs and responsibilities. Robots replace human workers. Retraining unemployed people was never easy, but it is more challenging now that technological disruption is spreading so rapidly, widely and unpredictably. There will be many new forms of employment in other corners of the infosphere — think of how many people have opened virtual shops on eBay. But new and different skills will be needed. More education and a universal basic income may mitigate the impact of robotics on the labour market.

想想兩個(gè)關(guān)鍵問(wèn)題：工作崗位和責(zé)任。機(jī)器人取代人類(lèi)勞動(dòng)者。重新培訓(xùn)失業(yè)人員從來(lái)都不是一件容易的事情，而隨著科技造成的擾亂如此迅速蔓延、影響廣泛和不可預(yù)測(cè)，這變得更具挑戰(zhàn)性。在信息空間的其他角落將出現(xiàn)許多新的就業(yè)形式——想想有多少人在eBay上開(kāi)了虛擬商店。但人們將需要新的、不同的技能。增加教育機(jī)會(huì)和實(shí)行全民基本收入或許可以緩解機(jī)器人對(duì)勞動(dòng)市場(chǎng)的影響。

Society will need more resources. Unfortunately, robots do not pay taxes. And more profitable companies are unlikely to pay enough extra taxes to compensate for the loss of revenues. So robots cause a higher demand for taxpayers’ money and a lower supply of it.

社會(huì)將需要更多資源。遺憾的是，機(jī)器人不交稅。而比較盈利的企業(yè)不太可能繳納足夠多的額外稅款來(lái)補(bǔ)償財(cái)政收入的損失。也就是說(shuō)，機(jī)器人帶來(lái)對(duì)納稅人資金的更高需求，卻也帶來(lái)更少的稅收收入。

How can one get out of this tailspin? The report correctly identifies the problem. But its original recommendation of a robo tax on companies that employ robots — a proposal that did not survive into the final text approved the parliament — may not be feasible, for what counts as a robot? It may also work as a disincentive to innovation.

如何擺脫這種困境?該報(bào)告正確地界定了這個(gè)難題。但其原本提出的方案(對(duì)使用機(jī)器人的企業(yè)征收“機(jī)器人稅”;該提案未能進(jìn)入議會(huì)通過(guò)的最終文本)或許并不可行，因?yàn)槭裁床潘銠C(jī)器人呢?這還可能阻礙創(chuàng)新。

And where should we allocate legal responsibilities? If my robot breaks my neighbour’s window, who is responsible? The company who produced it, the shop who sold it, I the owner, or the robot itself — if it has become completely autonomous through a learning process, capable of intelligent action? The report suggests a “specific legal status” for more advanced robots, as “electronic persons responsible for making good any damage they may cause”, which has been approved in the final document. So companies may not pay a robo tax and may not even be liable for some kinds of robots. This is a mistake.

此外，我們?nèi)绾畏峙浞韶?zé)任?如果我的機(jī)器人打破了我鄰居的窗戶，誰(shuí)該為此負(fù)責(zé)?生產(chǎn)這臺(tái)機(jī)器人的公司、銷(xiāo)售這臺(tái)機(jī)器人的商店、我這個(gè)所有者、還是機(jī)器人自己——如果它通過(guò)學(xué)習(xí)過(guò)程，變得完全自主，能夠做出智能行動(dòng)?報(bào)告建議，對(duì)比較先進(jìn)的機(jī)器人賦予一種“特殊的法律地位”，將它們視為“有責(zé)任賠償它們可能引起的任何損失的電子人”，這一點(diǎn)在最終的文件得到認(rèn)可。這樣一來(lái)，企業(yè)或許無(wú)需繳納機(jī)器人稅，甚至可能無(wú)需對(duì)某些機(jī)器人承擔(dān)賠償責(zé)任。這是一個(gè)錯(cuò)誤。

There is no need to adopt science fiction solutions to solve practical problems of legal liability. Jurisprudence already provides a solution.

沒(méi)必要用科幻小說(shuō)里的解決方案來(lái)解決法律責(zé)任歸屬的實(shí)際問(wèn)題。法理學(xué)已經(jīng)提供了一個(gè)解決方案。

If robots become as good as human agents — think of the droids in Star Wars — we can adapt rules as old as Roman law, in which the owner of enslaved persons is responsible for any damage. As the Romans knew, attributing some kind of legal personality to robots (or slaves) would relieve those who should control them of their responsibilities. And how would rights be attributed? Do robots have the right to own data? Should they be “liberated”?

如果機(jī)器人變得像人類(lèi)行為人一樣優(yōu)秀——想想《星球大戰(zhàn)》(Star Wars)里的機(jī)器人——那么我們可以借鑒羅馬法這樣的古老規(guī)則。羅馬法規(guī)定奴隸的主人要對(duì)奴隸造成的任何損壞負(fù)責(zé)。正如羅馬人看到的，將某種法律人格賦予機(jī)器人(或者奴隸)會(huì)讓那些應(yīng)該控制它們(他們)的人逃脫責(zé)任。而且，權(quán)利又該如何歸屬?機(jī)器人有權(quán)利擁有數(shù)據(jù)嗎?它們應(yīng)該被“解放”嗎?

It may be fun to speculate about such questions, but it is also distracting and irresponsible, given the pressing issues at hand. We are stuck in the wrong conceptual framework. The debate is not about robots but about us, and the kind of infosphere we want to create. We need less science fiction and more philosophy.

圍繞這些問(wèn)題進(jìn)行猜測(cè)也許很有趣，但考慮到當(dāng)前面臨的迫切問(wèn)題，這也是讓人分心和不負(fù)責(zé)任的。我們陷入了錯(cuò)誤的概念框架。這場(chǎng)辯論與機(jī)器人無(wú)關(guān)，而與我們有關(guān)，與我們想要?jiǎng)?chuàng)建什么樣的信息空間有關(guān)。我們需要少一些科幻小說(shuō)，多一些哲學(xué)。

The writer is professor of philosophy and ethics of information at the University of Oxford

本文作者是牛津大學(xué)(University of Oxford)哲學(xué)和信息倫理學(xué)教授