Abstract
Abstract
This paper discusses the accountability gap problem posed by artificial intelligence. After sketching out the accountability gap problem we turn to ancient Roman law and scrutinise how slave-run businesses dealt with the accountability gap through an indirect agency of slaves. Our analysis shows that Roman law developed a heterogeneous framework in which multiple legal remedies coexist to accommodate the various competing interests of owners and contracting third parties. Moreover, Roman law shows that addressing the various emerging interests had been a continuous and gradual process of allocating risks among different stakeholders. The paper concludes that these two findings are key for contemporary discussions on how to regulate artificial intelligence.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Reference10 articles.
1. Critical Rationalism: The Problem of Method in Social Sciences and Law
2. The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata
3. The invention of enterprise liability: a critical history of the intellectual foundations of modern tort law;Priest;Journal of Legal Studies,1985
4. Las “actiones adiecticiae qualitatis” y sus relaciones básicas en derecho romano;Valiño;Anuario de Historia del Derecho Espanol,1967
5. Killers, fridges, and slaves: a legal journey in robotics
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Artificial Intelligence and the Law;Artificial Intelligence and the Law;2024