Chiodo Simona
Politecnico di Milano, DAStU, Via Bonardi 3, 20133 Milano, Italy.
AI Soc. 2022;37(1):39-48. doi: 10.1007/s00146-021-01149-5. Epub 2021 Feb 21.
We continuously talk about autonomous technologies. But how can words qualifying technologies be the very same words chosen by Kant to define what is essentially human, i.e. being autonomous? The article focuses on a possible answer by reflecting upon both etymological and philosophical issues, as well as upon the case of autonomous vehicles. Most interestingly, on the one hand, we have the notion of (human) "autonomy", meaning that there is a "law" that is "self-given", and, on the other hand, we have the notion of (technological) "automation", meaning that there is something "offhand" that is "self-given". Yet, we are experiencing a kind of twofold shift: on the one hand, the shift from defining technologies in terms of automation to defining technologies in terms of autonomy and, on the other hand, the shift from defining humans in terms of autonomy to defining humans in terms of automation. From a philosophical perspective, the shift may mean that we are trying to escape precisely from what autonomy founds, i.e. individual responsibility of humans that, in the Western culture, have been defined for millennia as rational and moral decision-makers, even when their decisions have been the toughest. More precisely, the shift may mean that we are using technologies, and in particular emerging algorithmic technologies, as scapegoats that bear responsibility for us by making decisions for us. Moreover, if we consider the kind of emerging algorithmic technologies that increasingly surround us, starting from autonomous vehicles, then we may argue that we also seem to create a kind of technological divine that, by being always with us through its immanent omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence and inscrutability, can always be our technological scapegoat freeing us from the most unbearable burden of individual responsibility resulting from individual autonomy.
我们一直在谈论自主技术。但用于描述技术的词汇怎么会与康德用来定义人类本质（即自主）的词汇完全相同呢？本文通过思考词源学和哲学问题以及自动驾驶汽车的案例，聚焦于一个可能的答案。最有意思的是，一方面，我们有（人类的）“自主性”概念，意味着存在一种“自我赋予”的“法则”；另一方面，我们有（技术的）“自动化”概念，意味着存在某种“现成的”“自我赋予”的东西。然而，我们正在经历一种双重转变：一方面，从依据自动化来定义技术转变为依据自主性来定义技术；另一方面，从依据自主性来定义人类转变为依据自动化来定义人类。从哲学角度来看，这种转变可能意味着我们正试图确切地逃离自主性所奠定的基础，即在西方文化中被定义为理性和道德决策者长达数千年的人类个体责任，即便他们做出的是最艰难的决策。更确切地说，这种转变可能意味着我们将技术，尤其是新兴的算法技术，用作替罪羊，让它们替我们做决策从而为我们承担责任。此外，如果我们考虑日益围绕在我们身边的新兴算法技术类型，从自动驾驶汽车开始，那么我们可能会说，我们似乎还创造了一种技术之神，它凭借内在的无所不在、全知、全能和不可捉摸始终与我们相伴，总能成为我们的技术替罪羊，将我们从个体自主性带来的最难以承受的个体责任负担中解脱出来。
