Legal Status of Artificial Intelligence from Quantum-Theoretic Perspective
https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2023-10-4-5-34
- Р Р‡.МессенРТвЂВВВВВВВВжер
- РћРТвЂВВВВВВВВнокласснРСвЂВВВВВВВВРєРСвЂВВВВВВВВ
- LiveJournal
- Telegram
- ВКонтакте
- РЎРєРѕРїРСвЂВВВВВВВВровать ссылку
Full Text:
Abstract
Massive inclusion of artificial intelligence (AI) in the technosphere and electronic governments urges an update in legal regulation of these and related areas. The issue converges on the key question of whether AI can be endowed with legal personhood and capacity. Opposing views in this respect build on hardly compatible ethics and largely outdated scientific grounds with a clear perspective for deep cultural antagonisms and further fragmentation of the world. We contribute to this debate from the perspective of quantum cognitive science and show how it can resolve some of the current impasses. Our approach builds on the quantum-theoretic refinement of the concept of uncertainty into quantum and classical types: classical uncertainty denotes subjective ignorance of the present state of affairs, while quantum uncertainty accounts for individual freedom to construct the future. We show that legal capacity of intelligence, at bottom, is defined by the type of uncertainty it is capable to resolve. Natural intelligence, in particular, can resolve quantum uncertainties, generating genuine novelty and affective experience in the process. Classical AI, in contrast, is limited to algorithmic computation, bound to produce predefined results regardless of its complexity. Concepts of decision-making, subjectness, creativity, and personal meaning then are recognized as physically inapplicable to such systems. The proposed definitions of these terms complement and sharpen the criteria of legal capacity in the existing legislations, indicating that “autonomy” is essentially equivalent to “appreciation.” Classical AI then appears as fundamentally alien to subjectness and legal capacity both in civil and common laws, resolving a delicate contradiction between them. Quantum-empowered AI, in contrast, escapes this conclusion due to its access to quantum uncertainty, introducing novel challenges with respect to responsibility gaps and meaningful human control. The developed approach aligns with the present legal practice and ethical discourse, contributing to the scientifically informed development of law in technological societies.
About the Authors
E. MelnikovaRussian Federation
Elena Melnikova – Legal Adviser
49A Kronverksky Ave., Saint Petersburg, 197101
I. Surov
Russian Federation
Ilya Surov – Researcher and Teacher
49A Kronverksky Ave., Saint Petersburg, 197101
References
1. Aerts D. The Stuff the World is Made of: Physics and Reality, in Aerts D. et al. (eds.), Einstein Meets Magritte: An Interdisciplinary Reflection 129 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4704-0_9
2. Anderson M. & Anderson S.L. (eds.). Machine Ethics (2011). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511978036
3. Asaro P.M. A Body to Kick, but Still No Soul to Damn: Legal Perspectives on Robotics, in Lin P. et al. (eds.), Robot Ethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Robotics 169 (2012).
4. Atkinson K. et al. Explanation in AI and Law: Past, Present and Future, 289 Artificial Intelligence 103387 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2020.103387
5. Bányai O. Quantum Mechanics and Law: What Does Quantum Mechanics Teach Us?, in Ecological Integrity in Science and Law 147 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46259-8_13
6. Barad K. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning (2007).
7. Barfield W. & Pagallo U. (eds.). Research Handbook on the Law of Artificial Intelligence (2018). https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786439055
8. Baumeister R.F. et al. Choice, Free Will, and Religion, 2(2) Psychology of Religion and Spirituality 67 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018455
9. Bedau M.A. et al. Open Problems in Artificial Life, 6(4) Artificial Life 363 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1162/106454600300103683
10. Berk R.A. Artificial Intelligence, Predictive Policing, and Risk Assessment for Law Enforcement, 4(1) Annual Review of Criminology 209 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-051520-012342
11. Biamonte J. et al. Quantum Machine Learning, 549(7671) Nature 195 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23474
12. Bohm D. A New Theory of the Relationship of Mind and Matter, 3(2-3) Philosophical Psychology 271 (1990).
13. Bringsjord S. Psychometric Artificial Intelligence, 23(3) Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 271 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1080/0952813X.2010.502314
14. Bryson J.J. Patiency Is Not a Virtue: The Design of Intelligent Systems and Systems of Ethics, 20(1) Ethics and Information Technology 15 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9448-6
15. Burdon P. Wild Law: The Philosophy of Earth Jurisprudence, 35(2) Alternative Law Journal 62 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969X1003500201
16. Busuioc M. Accountable Artificial Intelligence: Holding Algorithms to Account, 81(5) Public Administration Review 825 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13293
17. Casas J. et al. Trends & Methods in Chatbot Evaluation, in ICMI’20 Companion: Companion Publication of the 2020 International Conference on Multimodal Interaction 280 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3395035.3425319
18. Catt E. & Norrish M. On the Formalisation of Kolmogorov Complexity, in CPP 2021: Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Certified Programs and Proofs 291 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3437992.3439921
19. Cervantes J.A. et al. Artificial Moral Agents: A Survey of the Current Status, 26(2) Science and Engineering Ethics 501 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00151-x
20. Cullinan C. Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice (2003).
21. Damiano L. & Dumouchel P. Anthropomorphism in Human-Robot Co-Evolution, 9 Frontiers in Psychology 1 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00468
22. De Bhailís C. & Flynn E. Recognizing Legal Capacity: Commentary and Analysis of Article 12 CRPD, 13(1) International Journal of Law in Context 6 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1017/S174455231600046X
23. De Jesus P. Thinking Through Enactive Agency: Sense-Making, Bio-Semiosis and the Ontologies of Organismic Worlds, 17(5) Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 861 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-018-9562-2
24. Deng L.-Y. & Bowman D. Developments in Pseudo-Random Number Generators, 9(5) WIREs Computational Statistics (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.1404
25. Dennett D.C. Freedom Evolves (2003).
26. Dennett D.C. The Intentional Stance (1998). https://doi.org/10.2307/2185215
27. Dennett D.C. What Can We Do?, in Possible Minds: Twenty-Five Ways of Looking at AI 41 (2019).
28. Dennett D.C. Why You Can’t Make a Computer That Feels Pain, 38(3) Synthese 415 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00486638
29. Der Derian J. & Wendt A. (eds.). Quantum International Relations: A Human Science for World Politics (2022). https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197568200.001.0001
30. Der Derian J. & Wendt A. “Quantizing International Relations”: The Case for Quantum Approaches to International Theory and Security Practice, 51(5) Security Dialogue 399 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010620901905
31. Devins C. et al. The Law and Big Data, 27(2) Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 357 (2017).
32. Dhall A. On the Philosophy and Legal Theory of Human Rights in Light of Quantum Holism, 66(1) World Futures 1 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1080/02604020903080699
33. Di Biase F. From Quantum Universe to Holographic Brain: The Spiritual Nature of Mankind, 14(3) Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research 156 (2023).
34. Dolphijn R. Critical Naturalism: A Quantum Mechanical Ethics, 30 Rhizomes: Cultural Studies in Emerging Knowledge (2016). https://doi.org/10.20415/rhiz/030.e12
35. Dotsenko E.L. & Pchelina O.V. Free Will as a Paradox: Empirical Evaluation of the Construct of Everyday Consciousness, 14(2) Psychology in Russia: State of the Art 137 (2021). https://doi.org/10.11621/pir.2021.0209
36. Dunjko V. & Briegel H.J. Machine Learning & Artificial Intelligence in the Quantum Domain: A Review of Recent Progress, 81(7) Reports on Progress in Physics (2018). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/aab406
37. Elkins K. & Chun J. Can GPT-3 Pass a Writer’s Turing Test?, 5(2) Journal of Cultural Analytics (2020). https://doi.org/10.22148/001c.17212
38. Ferguson A.G. Policing Predictive Policing, 94(5) Washington University Law Review 1109 (2017).
39. Gellers J.C. Rights for Robots (2020). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429288159
40. Gobet F. & Sala G. How Artificial Intelligence Can Help Us Understand Human Creativity, 10 Frontiers in Psychology 1 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01401
41. Gómez-Vírseda C. et al. Relational Autonomy: What Does It Mean and How Is It Used in End-of-Life Care? A Systematic Review of Argument-Based Ethics Literature, 20(1) BMC Medical Ethics 1 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0417-3
42. Guilford J.P. Three Faces of Intellect, 14(8) American Psychologist 469 (1959). https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046827
43. Healey R. The Quantum Revolution in Philosophy (2017).
44. Herrero-Collantes M. & Garcia-Escartin J.C.Quantum Random Number Generators, 89(1) Reviews of Modern Physics 1 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.89.015004
45. Hildebrandt M. Legal Personhood for AI?, in Law for Computer Scientists 237 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198860877.003.0009
46. Holtfort T. & Horsch A. Social Science Goes Quantum: Explaining Human Decision-Making, Cognitive Biases and Darwinian Selection from a Quantum Perspective, 25 Journal of Bioeconomics 99 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-023-09334-w
47. Husa J. The Future of Legal Families, in (online edn.) Oxford Handbook Topics in Law (2016). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935352.013.26
48. Ishida Y. & Chiba R. Free Will and Turing Test with Multiple Agents: An Example of Chatbot Design, 112 Procedia Computer Science 2506 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.08.190
49. Jaeger G. Quantum Randomness and Unpredictability, 65(6-8) Fortschritte der Physik (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/prop.201600053
50. Jeutner V. The Quantum Imperative: Addressing the Legal Dimension of Quantum Computers, 1(1) Morals & Machines 52 (2021).
51. Kauffman S.A. & Gare A. Beyond Descartes and Newton: Recovering Life and Humanity, 119(3) Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 219 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2015.06.003
52. Kauffman S.A. Humanity in a Creative Universe (2016). https://doi.org/10.1086/700802
53. Khan I. Free Will - A Road Less Travelled in Quantum Information (2016).
54. Khrennikov A.Y. Open Quantum Systems in Biology, Cognitive and Social Sciences (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29024-4
55. Lehman-Wilzig S.N. Frankenstein Unbound: Towards a Legal Definition of Artificial Intelligence, 13(6) Futures 442 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(81)90100-2
56. Lewis O. Advancing Legal Capacity Jurisprudence, 6 European Human Rights Law Review 700 (2011).
57. MacIntyre J. et al. At the Tipping Point, 1 AI and Ethics 1 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-020-00016-1
58. Maclure J. AI, Explainability and Public Reason: The Argument from the Limitations of the Human Mind, 31(3) Minds and Machines 421 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-021-09570-x
59. Maldonado C.E. Quantum Theory and the Social Sciences, 59(E) Momento 34 (2019).
60. Marchesi S. et al. Do We Adopt the Intentional Stance Toward Humanoid Robots?, 10 Frontiers in Psychology 1 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00450
61. Matthias A. The Responsibility Gap: Ascribing Responsibility for the Actions of Learning Automata, 6(3) Ethics and Information Technology 175 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-004-3422-1
62. McNally P. & Inayatullah S. The Rights of Robots: Technology, Culture and Law in the 21st Century, 20(2) Futures 119 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(88)90019-5
63. McSherry B. Legal Capacity under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 20 Journal of Law and Medicine 22 (2012).
64. Miller A.D. & Perry R. The Reasonable Person, 87(2) New York University Law Review 323 (2012).
65. Montgomery A.H. Quantum Mechanisms: Expanding the Boundaries of Power, Space, and Time in Global Security Studies, 1(1) Journal of Global Security Studies 102 (2016).
66. Orrell D. Quantum Economics: The New Science of Money (2018).
67. Ozdemir D. et al. Design and Implementation Framework of Social Assistive Robotics for People with Dementia - A Scoping Review, 11(2) Health and Technology 367 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-021-00522-0
68. Persaud P. et al. Can Robots Get Some Human Rights? A Cross-Disciplinary Discussion, Journal of Robotics (2021). https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5461703
69. Possati L.M. Ethics of Quantum Computing: An Outline, 36(3) Philosophy and Technology 1 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-023-00651-6
70. Proudfoot D. Anthropomorphism and AI: Turing’s Much Misunderstood Imitation Game, 175(5-6) Artificial Intelligence 950 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2011.01.006
71. Robbins S. The Many Meanings of Meaningful Human Control, in MacIntyre J. & Medsker L. (eds.), AI and Ethics (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-023-00320-6
72. Roff H.M. Artificial Intelligence: Power to the People, 33(2) Ethics & International Affairs 127 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679419000121
73. Salles A. et al. Anthropomorphism in AI, 11(2) AJOB Neuroscience 88 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2020.1740350
74. Santoni de Sio F. & Mecacci G. Four Responsibility Gaps with Artificial Intelligence: Why They Matter and How to Address Them, 34(4) Philosophy and Technology 1057 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-021-00450-x
75. Scalet S.P. Fitting the People They Are Meant to Serve: Reasonable Persons in the American Legal System, 22(1) Law and Philosophy 75 (2003).
76. Shafer-Landau R. (ed.). Ethical Theory: An Anthology (2nd ed. 2013). https://doi.org/10.26694/pensando.v8i15.5535
77. Solum L.B. Legal Personhood for Artificial Intelligences, 70(4) North Carolina Law Review 1231 (1992).
78. Stapp H.P. Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-05369-0
79. Stapp H.P. Quantum Theory and Free Will (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58301-3
80. Sternberg R.J. Toward a Triarchic Theory of Human Intelligence, 7(2) Behavioral and Brain Sciences 269 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00044629
81. Suppes P. The Transcendental Character of Determinism, 18(1) Midwest Studies in Philosophy 242 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4975.1993.tb00266.x
82. Surov I.A. Natural Code of Subjective Experience, 15(2) Biosemiotics 109 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-022-09487-7
83. Surov I.A. Quantum Core Affect. Color-Emotion Structure of Semantic Atom, 13 Frontiers in Psychology 1 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.838029
84. Thompson E. & Stapleton M. Making Sense of Sense-Making: Reflections on Enactive and Extended Mind Theories, 28(1) Topoi 23 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-008-9043-2
85. Tigard D.W. There Is No Techno-Responsibility Gap, 34(3) Philosophy & Technology 589 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00414-7
86. Tribe L.H. The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics, 103(1) Harvard Law Review 1 (1989). https://doi.org/10.2307/1341407
87. Trnka R. & Lorencová R. Quantum Anthropology: Man, Cultures, and Groups in a Quantum Perspective (2016). https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.5699272
88. Veluwenkamp H. Reasons for Meaningful Human Control, 24(4) Ethics and Information Technology (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-022-09673-8
89. Vidhya N.G. et al. Prognosis of Exploration on Chat GPT with Artificial Intelligence Ethics, 2(9) Brazilian Journal of Science 60 (2023). https://doi.org/10.14295/bjs.v2i9.372
90. Wallach W. & Asaro P.M. (eds.). Machine Ethics and Robot Ethics (2020). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003074991
91. Walter D.O. Choosing the Right Fictions of Scientific Law, 8(3) American Journal of Physiology 365 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpregu.1980.239.5.r365
92. Watson G. Free Action and Free Will, 96(382) Mind 145 (1987).
93. Weller P. Reconsidering Legal Capacity: Radical Critiques, Governmentality and Dividing Practice, 23(3) Griffith Law Review 498 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2014.993499
94. Wendt A. Quantum Mind and Social Science (2015). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316005163
95. Wendt A. Why IR Scholars Should Care about Quantum Theory, Part I: Burdens of Proof and Uncomfortable Facts, 14(1) International Theory 119 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1017/S175297192100004X
96. Wojtczak S. Endowing Artificial Intelligence with Legal Subjectivity, 37(1) AI and Society 205 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01147-7
97. Zeilinger A. The Message of the Quantum, 438(7069) Nature 743 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/438743a
98. Zohar D. Zero Distance: Management in the Quantum Age (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7849-3
99. Алексеева И.Ю. Культ технологий и субъектность человека // VII Декартовcкие чтения: глобальные угрозы развитию цивилизации в XXI веке [Alekseeva I.Yu. The Cult of Technology and the Subjectivity of Man, in VII Cartesian Readings: Global Threats to the Development of Civilization in the 21st Century] 109-116 (2021).
100. Алексеева И.Ю., Аршинов В.И., Чеклецов В.В.“Технолюди” против “постлюдей”: НБИКС-революция и будущее человека // Вопросы философии. 2013. № 3. С. 12-21 [Alekseeva I.Yu. et al. “Technohumans” versus “Posthumans”: NBICS-Revolution and the Future of Man, 3 Problems of Philosophy 12 (2013)].
101. Алексеева Т.А., Минеев А.П., Лошкарев И.Д. «Земля смятения»: квантовая теория в международных отношениях? // Вестник МГИМО-Университета. 2016. Т. 2. С. 7-16 [Alekseeva T.A. et al. “Land of Confusion”: Quantum Theory in International Relations?, 2 Bulletin of MGIMO University 7 (2016)].
102. Аршинов В.И., Буданов В.Г. Становление методологии сложностно-семиотического мышления в диалоге с квантовой механикой // Вопросы философии. 2022. № 8. С. 77-85 [Arshinov V.I. & Budanov V.G. Becoming of the Methodology of Complex-Semiotic Thinking in Dialogue with Quantum Mechanics, 8 Problems of Philosophy 77 (2022)].
103. Гарбук С.В. Особенности применения понятия «доверие» в области искусственного интеллекта // Искусственный интеллект и принятие решений. 2020. № 3. С. 15-21 [Garbuk S.V. The Features of Using the Concept of “Trust” in the Area of Artificial Intelligence, 3 Artificial Intelligence and Decision-Making 15 (2020)]. https://doi.org/10.14357/20718594200302
104. Карпов В.Э., Готовцев П.М., Ройзензон Г.В. К вопросу об этике и системах искусственного интеллекта // Философия и общество. 2018. № 2. С. 84-105 [Karpov V.E. et al. On Ethics and Artificial Intelligence Systems, 2 Philosophy and Society 84 (2018)]. https://doi.org/10.30884/jfio/2018.02.07
105. Колмаков В.Ю., Курбатова С.М. Философия авторского права в эпоху GPTгенерации текстов искусственным интеллектом // Философия в XXI веке: социально-философские проблемы современной науки и техники [Kolmakov V.Yu. & Kurbatova S.M. Philosophy of Copyright in the Era of GPT-Generation of Texts by Artificial Intelligence, in Philosophy in the 21st Century: Socio-Philosophical Problems of Modern Science and Technology] 429-436 (2023).
106. Лешкевич Т.Г. Метафоры цифровой эры и Black Box Problem // Философия науки и техники. 2022. № 1(27). С. 34-48 [Leshkevich T.G. Metaphors of the Digital Era and the Black Box Problem, 27(1) Philosophy of Science and Technology 34 (2022)]. https://doi.org/10.21146/2413-9084-2022-27-1-34-48
107. Никитина Е.А. Проблема субъектности в интеллектуальной робототехнике // Философские проблемы информационных технологий и киберпространства. 2016. № 2(12). С. 31-39 [Nikitina E.A. The Problem of Subjectivity in Intellectual Robotics, 12(2) Philosophical Problems of Information Technologies and Cyberspace 31 (2016)]. https://doi.org/10.17726/philIT.2016.12.2.3
108. Разин А.В. Этика искусственного интеллекта // Философия и общество. 2019. № 90(1). С. 57-73 [Razin A.V. Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, 1(90) Philosophy and Society 57 (2019)]. https://doi.org/10.30884/jfio/2019.01.0
Review
For citations:
Melnikova E., Surov I. Legal Status of Artificial Intelligence from Quantum-Theoretic Perspective. BRICS Law Journal. 2023;10(4):5-34. https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2023-10-4-5-34
ISSN 2412-2343 (Online)