In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

177 CONCLUSIONS Criminal liability for artificial intelligence entities may sound radical. For centuries, criminal liability was considered to be part of an exclusively human universe. The first crack in the concept occurred in the seventeenth century, when corporations were admitted into this exclusive club. Corporate offenders joined human offenders, as both criminal liability and punishments were equally imposed on both. The twentieth century introduced ai technology to humankind. This technology developed rapidly in an attempt to imitate human capabilities. Today, ai systems imitate some human capabilities perfectly; indeed, they outperform humans in many areas. Other human capabilities, however, still cannot be imitated. Criminal liability does not require that offenders possess all human capabilities, only some. If an ai entity possesses these capabilities, then logically and rationally, criminal liability can be imposed whenever an offense is committed. The idea of criminal liability of ai entities should not be confused with the idea of moral accountability, which is a hugely complex issue not only for machines, but for humans. Morality, in general, has no single definition that is acceptable to all societies and individuals. Deontological and teleological morality are the most acceptable types, and in many situations they lead in opposite directions, both “moral.” The Nazis considered themselves to be deontologically moral, although most other people, societies, and individuals thought otherwise. Because morality is so difficult to assess, moral accountability is not the most appropriate and efficient way of evaluating responsibility in criminal cases. Therefore, society has chosen criminal liability as the most appropriate means for dealing with delinquency. Modern criminal liability is independent from morality of any kind, as well as from the concept of evil. It is imposed in an organized, almost mathematical way. Criminal liability has definite requirements, not more and not less. If an ai entity meets all these requirements, then there is no reason not to impose criminal liability on it. We have seen that ai entities are capable of meeting these requirements in the same way that human and corporate offenders do (but not animals). We have also seen that all types of crimi- WHEN ROBOTS KILL . 178 nal liability are relevant to ai technology, and all substantive arguments of criminal liability can be made regarding ai entities. Finally, we have also seen that penalties can be imposed on ai entities in a way that substantively resembles the way in which corporations are being punished. Society derives the usual benefits of criminal law by imposing criminal liability on ai entities. The conclusion is simple. Either we impose criminal liability on ai entities, or we must change the basic definition of criminal liability as it developed over thousands of years, and abandon the traditional understandings of criminal liability. ...

Share