谁应该对机器人违法负责？_风闻

【来源龙腾网】

正文原创翻译：

毫无疑问，机器人正变得越来越复杂，机器人正在成为我们日常生活中不可或缺的一部分。 但是随着我们与机器人的互动和依赖增加，有一个重要的问题：如果机器人真的违法犯罪，甚至伤害了某人——无论是故意的还是无意的，会发生什么后果？

Robots are unquestioningly getting more sophisticated by the year, and as a result, are becoming an indelible part of our daily lives. But as we start to increase our interactions and dependance on robots, an important question needs to be asked: What would happen if a robot actually committed a crime, or even hurt someone — either deliberately or by mistake?

虽然我们对此的第一反应可能是责怪机器人，但追究责任的问题比单纯责怪机器人要复杂得多，也更微妙。 与任何涉及涉嫌犯罪行为的事件一样，我们需要考虑一系列因素。 让我们更深入地探讨一下，当您的机器人违法时，谁应该负责。

While our first inclination might be to blame the robot, the matter of apportioning blame is considerably more complicated and nuanced than that. Like any incident involving an alleged criminal act, we need to consider an entire host of factors. Let’s take a deeper look and find out who should pay when your robot breaks the law.

为了更好地理解这个问题，我采访了机器人伦理专家Patrick Lin，他是加州理工州立大学伦理 + 新兴科学小组的负责人。 通过与他的交谈，我了解到这个问题有多么重要。 正如Lin告诉我的那样，“任何一方都可能对如今机器人的不当行为负责。”

To better understand this issue I spoke to robot ethics expert Patrick Lin, the Director of Ethics + Emerging Sciences Group at California Polytechnic State University. It was through my conversation with him that I learned just how pertinent this issue is becoming. As Lin told me, “Any number of parties could be held responsible for robot misbehaviour today.”

机器人伦理和机器伦理

Robot and machine ethics

在我们深入探讨之前，需要区分两个不同的研究领域：机器人伦理学（robot ethics）和机器伦理学（machine ethics）。

Before we get too far along in the discussion, a distinction needs to be made between two different fields of study: robot ethics and machine ethics.

我们目前处于机器人伦理时代，关注的焦点在于如何以及为何设计、构造和使用机器人，比如Roomba等家用机器人、自动驾驶汽车以及可能的在战场上自动杀人的机器人。 这些机器人虽然能够在没有人类监督的情况下“行动”，但本质上是无意识的自动机。 因此，机器人伦理主要关注其使用的适当性。

We are currently in the age of robot ethics, where the concern lies with how and why robots are designed, constructed, and used. This includes such things as domestic robots like Roomba, self-driving cars, and the potential for autonomous killing machines on the battlefield. These robots, while capable of “acting” without human oversight, are essentially mindless automatons. Robot ethics, therefore, is primarily concerned with the appropriateness of their use.

另一方面，机器伦理学更具推测性，因为它考虑了机器人（或更准确地说，机器人的具体化人工智能编程）具有自我意识和道德思考能力的未来潜力。 因此，机器伦理关注的是先进机器人的实际行为和具体行动。

Machine ethics, on the other hand, is a bit more speculative in that it considers the future potential for robots (or more accurately, their embodied artificially intelligent programming) to have self-awareness and the capacity for moral thought. Consequently, machine ethics is concerned with the actual behavior and actions of advanced robots.

因此，在将任何责任归咎于机器人的邪恶行为之前，我们需要确定这两个类别中的哪一个真正适用于面对的问题。 现在和不久的将来，机器人道德肯定够用了，在这种情况下，责任应该归于制造商、所有者，在某些情况下甚至是受害者。

So, before any blame can get assigned to a robot for any nefarious action, we would need to decide which of these two categories apply. For now and the immediate future, robot ethics most certainly qualifies, in which case accountability should to be attributed to either the manufacturer, the owner, and in some cases even the victim.

但展望未来，随着机器人在道德成熟度方面越来越接近人类，机器人很可能必须为自己的罪行负责

But looking further into the future to a time when robots match our own level of moral sophistication, the day is coming when they will very likely to have to answer for their crimes.

制造商的责任

Manufacturer liability

在现在和可预见的未来，机器人犯错的责任通常落在制造商身上。Lin说: “当涉及到更基本的自主机器和系统时，制造商应确认预见到的任何软件或硬件缺陷。”

原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

For now and the foreseeable future, culpability for a robot that has gone wrong will usually fall on the manufacturer. “When it comes to more basic autonomous machines and systems,” said Lin, “a manufacturer needs to ensure that any software or hardware defect should have been foreseen.”

他举了一个关于Roomba的假设例子，假如它身临混乱之中——制造商无法预料的一系列变量。 “人们可以想象 Roomba从边缘掉落并正好砸在一只猫上，”他说，“在这种情况下，可以说制造商负有责任。”

He cited the hypothetical example of a Roomba that experiences a perfect storm of confusion — a set of variables that the manufacturer could not have anticipated. “One could imagine the Roomba falling off an edge and landing right on top of a cat,” he said, “in which case it could be said that the manufacturer is responsible.”

事实上，因为机器人只是根据其编程运行，所以它们不能为自己的行为负责，也绝对没有恶意。 如果消费者按照说明书使用机器人并且没有以任何方式进行修改，那么消费者也不应该承担责任。

Indeed, because the robot is just operating according to the limits of its programming, it cannot be held accountable for its actions. There was absolutely no malice involved. And assuming that the robot was being used according to instructions and not modified in any way, the consumer shouldn’t be held liable either.

超出预期用途的使用

Outside intended use

Lin指出，这引起了另一个问题。他说：“机器人拥有者也有可能误用并直接骇入自己的机器人。Lin举例说，家庭防卫机器人在亚洲正被越来越多地应用--包括进行家庭巡逻的机器人，可以发射胡椒喷雾和使用彩弹枪。他告诉我：“可以想象，有人可能想把Roomba武器化，“他说，“在这种情况下，所有者将承担责任，而不是制造商。” 因为机器人以完全超出其预期用途的方式行动，所以制造商免责。

Which, as Lin pointed out, raises another issue.

“It’s also possible that owners will misuse their robots and hack directly into them,” he said. Lin pointed to the example of home defense robots that are being increasingly used in Asia — including robots that go on home patrol and can shoot pepper spray and paint-ball guns. “It’s conceivable that someone might want to weaponize the Roomba,” he told me, “in which case the owner would be on the hook and not the manufacturer.” In such a scenario, the robot would act in a way completely outside of its intended use, thus absolving the manufacturer from liability.

但是，Lin也澄清说，事情依然不简单。“他说：“仅仅因为拥有者修改了机器人，使其做了制造商从未设想过或无法预见的事情，并不意味着制造商就完全脱责了。有些人可能会说，制造商应该预见到黑客攻击的可能性，或其他类似的修改，并建立保障措施，防止这种操纵。”

But as Lin clarified for us, it’s still not as cut-and-dry as that. “Just because the owner modified the robot to do things that the manufacturer never intended or could never foresee doesn’t mean they’re completely off the hook,” he said. “Some might argue that the manufacturer should have foreseen the possibility of hacking, or other such modifications, and in turn build in safeguards to prevent this kind of manipulation.”

受害者的责任

Blame the victim

某些情况下甚至受害者也会被追究责任。“想想自动驾驶汽车，“Lin说，“一个乱穿马路的人可能会突然跑过马路并被撞。在这种情况下，真正应该负责的是受害者。

And there are still yet other scenarios in which even the victim could be held responsible. “Consider self-driving cars,” said Lin, “and the possibility that a jay-walker could suddenly run across the street and get hit.” In such a case it’s the victim that’s really to blame.

事实上，人们可以设想很多场景，在这些场景中，人们由于不注意或鲁莽，不小心被他们周围越来越多的强大且自主的机器所伤。