by In the modern world Passengerless taxis stop frequently to reduce congestion and air pollution. But when he received a compliment, he accidentally hit a pedestrian on the sidewalk. The question arises: Who or what should be praised for taxi drivers’ green actions? And who or what is to blame for pedestrian injuries?
The designers or developers of driverless taxis are the ones likely to be praised or criticized. But the true behavior of taxi drivers may not have been seen before. This is because people often want AI to come up with new ideas or plans. If the operation of the system is predictable There is no need for AI.
However, these AI systems work in a deterministic way. And the behavior of these systems is determined by code and incoming Smart Sensor Data. It seems morally inappropriate to judge a machine that has no other options.
Many contemporary philosophers argue that rational agents can be morally responsible for their actions. Regardless of whether an action is predetermined or not, moral agents must, however, have some capacity, such as the ability to determine their own values. Where autonomous taxis lack, AI systems occupy an uncomfortable middle ground between ethical agents and unethical tools.
Driverless taxis have no passengers, so they stop frequently to reduce congestion and air pollution. after being called The taxi went out to pick up the passengers. and tragically hit a pedestrian in a crosswalk at the same time. Who or what deserves praise for the actions cars are taking to reduce congestion and air pollution? And who or what is to blame for pedestrian injuries?
One possibility is that designers or developers of driverless taxis, however, in many cases, are unable to predict the exact behavior of taxis. In fact People often want artificial intelligence to come up with new ideas or plans. or something unexpected came up If we know what the system must do We don’t need to mess with AI.
Or maybe the taxis themselves should be praised and criticized, but such AI systems are basically determined by them. Their behavior is determined by incoming code and sensor data. Even if an observer tries to predict the behavior of a machine that has no choice but to make moral judgments, it seems strange.
According to many modern philosophers, Rational people can be morally responsible for their actions. Even if their actions are predetermined. Whether by neuroscience or by code. But most agree that morality requires certain abilities that self-driving taxis almost certainly lack, such as the ability to determine their own values, and puts AI systems in the middle between moral agents and “self-serving” tools.
As a society, we face a misconception: It appears that no one, or nothing, is morally responsible for the actions of AI—what philosophers call the responsibility gap. Current theories of moral responsibility appear to be inappropriate for understanding situations involving only autonomy or quasi-autonomy.
As a society, we are grappling with a responsibility gap: no one, or nothing, appears to be morally responsible for the actions of AI. Modern theories of moral responsibility seem inadequate to understand situations involving systems.
Medieval philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, and William of Ockham It wrestles with the question of how people can be morally responsible for their actions and their consequences.
*Note:
1. Source: Coherent Market Insights, Public sources, Desk research
2. We have leveraged AI tools to mine information and compile it
