Pravna subjektiviteta robotov / Legal Personhood of Robots

Proizvajalci pametnih robotov zaradi narave strojnega učenja pogosto ne morejo v celoti predvideti njihovega vedenja. Ali bi torej morali robotom priznati pravno subjektiviteto? To bi imelo pomembne praktične posledice. Na primer, kaj bi se zgodilo, če bi prometno nesrečo zagrešil samovozeči avto? Ali bi avto moral biti odgovoren namesto lastnika oziroma voznika? Če je tako, potem bi avto moral imeti tudi zmožnost biti lastnik stvari, biti upravičenec dedovanja, sklepanje pogodb itd. Zagovorniki podeljevanja pravne subjektivitete robotom si pri argumentaciji pomagajo s primerjavo s pravnimi osebami, občasno pa tudi z živalmi. Torej, če je pravna subjektiviteta lahko podeljena fiktivnim subjektom, kot so korporacije, društva, verske skupnosti, ustanove, zakaj ne materialnim subjektom, kot so roboti?

Manufacturers of smart robots cannot fully anticipate their behavior due to the nature of machine learning. Should robots be recognised as legal subjects? This would have significant practical consequences. For example, what would happen if a car accident was committed by a self-driving car? Should the car be responsible instead of the owner or driver? If so, then the car should also be able to be the owner of things, be the beneficiary of inheritance, be a contracting party, etc. Advocates of granting legal personhood to robots assist themselves using the comparison of legal persons, and occasionally animals. So, if legal subjectivity can be given to fictitious entities such as corporations, societies, religious communities, institutions, why not to material entities such as robots?

                       Pika Šarf

                       Dr. Matija Žgur

festivalgrounded@gmail.com

fb profilka2