Writing for Northeastern Global News, Tanner Stening published an article on May 26th, unpacking accountability, autonomy, and the thorny distinctions between a product, a service, and a sentient being when it comes to rapidly developing AI systems. Fundamentally, depending on where you draw the line, Stening asks:
“Can an artificial intelligence tool, such as a chatbot, be held responsible if people committed crimes based on information they got from the tool? Should chatbots, which are programmed to closely mimic human thought patterns and are increasingly treated as companions, be subject to legal checks that acknowledge those tools’ developing independence or autonomy?”
Globally, answers to such questions differ. Patricia Williams, a University Distinguished Professor of Law and Humanities and member of the WGSS executive committee, who has written extensively about the ethical implications of AI, puts it this way.
“When they’re categorized simply as products — something provided by a company — it’s a very different relationship than if we put it in the realm of services, or human services. Services can be governed … by things like civil rights laws, fairness laws and questions of accountability in a very different way than simply a product that, say, got broken.”
As AI systems produce endless streams of content, and their capabilities soar exponentially upward, Stening reports on a global grappling with ownership, legal accountability, and who (or what) can be deemed “human.”
Read the full article here.
