• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Tragic Choices and the Virtue of Techno-Responsibility Gaps.悲剧性选择与技术责任差距之美德
Philos Technol. 2022;35(2):26. doi: 10.1007/s13347-022-00519-1. Epub 2022 Mar 30.
2
Moral responsibility, technology, and experiences of the tragic: from Kierkegaard to offshore engineering.道德责任、技术与悲剧体验:从克尔凯郭尔到海上石油工程。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2012 Mar;18(1):35-48. doi: 10.1007/s11948-010-9233-3. Epub 2010 Sep 24.
3
Responsibility Gaps and Black Box Healthcare AI: Shared Responsibilization as a Solution.责任缺口与医疗保健人工智能的黑箱问题:以共同责任分担为解决方案
Digit Soc. 2023 Dec;2(3):52. doi: 10.1007/s44206-023-00073-z. Epub 2023 Nov 16.
4
Responsibility and the limits of patient choice.责任与患者选择的界限。
Bioethics. 2020 Jun;34(5):459-466. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12693. Epub 2019 Nov 26.
5
Artificial Agents in Natural Moral Communities: A Brief Clarification.自然道德共同体中的人工智能代理:简要澄清。
Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2021 Jul;30(3):455-458. doi: 10.1017/S0963180120001000.
6
Tragic choices and moral compromise: the ethics of allocating kidneys for transplantation.悲剧性的选择与道德妥协:器官移植配型中的伦理问题。
Milbank Q. 2013 Sep;91(3):528-57. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12025.
7
The Retribution-Gap and Responsibility-Loci Related to Robots and Automated Technologies: A Reply to Nyholm.《论与机器人和自动化技术相关的报应差距和责任所在地:对尼霍姆的回应》。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2020 Apr;26(2):727-735. doi: 10.1007/s11948-019-00120-4. Epub 2019 Jul 2.
8
Delegation: developing the habit.授权:养成习惯。
Radiol Manage. 2001 Jul-Aug;23(4):16-20, 22, 24.
9
Responsibility Gaps and Retributive Dispositions: Evidence from the US, Japan and Germany.责任差距与报应倾向:来自美国、日本和德国的证据。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2024 Oct 17;30(6):51. doi: 10.1007/s11948-024-00509-w.
10
Tragedy in moral case deliberation.道德案例审议中的悲剧
Med Health Care Philos. 2017 Sep;20(3):321-333. doi: 10.1007/s11019-016-9749-7.

引用本文的文献

1
It Is Not About AI, It's About Humans. Responsibility Gaps and Medical AI.这不是关于人工智能,而是关于人类。责任缺口与医疗人工智能。
J Bioeth Inq. 2025 Jun 26. doi: 10.1007/s11673-025-10423-w.
2
From liability gaps to liability overlaps: shared responsibilities and fiduciary duties in AI and other complex technologies.从责任缺口到责任重叠:人工智能及其他复杂技术中的共同责任与受托义务
AI Soc. 2025;40(5):4035-4050. doi: 10.1007/s00146-024-02137-1. Epub 2025 Jan 11.
3
Should Physicians Take the Rap? Normative Analysis of Clinician Perspectives on Responsible Use of 'Black Box' AI Tools.医生应该承担责任吗?对临床医生关于合理使用“黑匣子”人工智能工具观点的规范性分析。
AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2025 May 12:1-12. doi: 10.1080/23294515.2025.2497755.
4
Ethics of artificial intelligence in embryo assessment: mapping the terrain.胚胎评估中人工智能的伦理问题:勾勒全貌
Hum Reprod. 2025 Feb 1;40(2):179-185. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deae264.
5
Responsibility Gaps and Retributive Dispositions: Evidence from the US, Japan and Germany.责任差距与报应倾向:来自美国、日本和德国的证据。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2024 Oct 17;30(6):51. doi: 10.1007/s11948-024-00509-w.
6
Responsibility Gap(s) Due to the Introduction of AI in Healthcare: An Ubuntu-Inspired Approach.医疗保健领域引入人工智能导致的责任缺口:一种受乌班图启发的方法。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2024 Aug 1;30(4):34. doi: 10.1007/s11948-024-00501-4.
7
Free Will as Defined by the Constrained Disorder Principle: a Restricted, Mandatory, Personalized, Regulated Process for Decision-Making.由受限无序原则定义的自由意志:一种受限、强制、个性化、受调控的决策过程。
Integr Psychol Behav Sci. 2024 Dec;58(4):1843-1875. doi: 10.1007/s12124-024-09853-9. Epub 2024 Jun 20.
8
Responsibility Gaps and Black Box Healthcare AI: Shared Responsibilization as a Solution.责任缺口与医疗保健人工智能的黑箱问题:以共同责任分担为解决方案
Digit Soc. 2023 Dec;2(3):52. doi: 10.1007/s44206-023-00073-z. Epub 2023 Nov 16.

本文引用的文献

1
Meaningful Human Control over Autonomous Systems: A Philosophical Account.人类对自主系统的有效控制:一种哲学阐释。
Front Robot AI. 2018 Feb 28;5:15. doi: 10.3389/frobt.2018.00015. eCollection 2018.
2
Debunking (the) Retribution (Gap).破除(报应)差距。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2020 Jun;26(3):1315-1328. doi: 10.1007/s11948-019-00148-6. Epub 2019 Oct 16.
3
The Moral Machine experiment.道德机器实验。
Nature. 2018 Nov;563(7729):59-64. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0637-6. Epub 2018 Oct 24.
4
Attributing Agency to Automated Systems: Reflections on Human-Robot Collaborations and Responsibility-Loci.自动化系统的归属机构:对人机协作和责任归属的思考。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2018 Aug;24(4):1201-1219. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9943-x. Epub 2017 Jul 18.
5
Automation bias and verification complexity: a systematic review.自动化偏差与验证复杂性:一项系统综述
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 Mar 1;24(2):423-431. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocw105.
6
Automation bias: a systematic review of frequency, effect mediators, and mitigators.自动化偏差:频率、影响中介和缓解因素的系统评价。
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012 Jan-Feb;19(1):121-7. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000089. Epub 2011 Jun 16.
7
The actor-observer asymmetry in attribution: a (surprising) meta-analysis.归因中的行为者-观察者不对称性:一项(令人惊讶的)元分析。
Psychol Bull. 2006 Nov;132(6):895-919. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.895.
8
Automation bias: decision making and performance in high-tech cockpits.自动化偏差:高科技驾驶舱中的决策与性能
Int J Aviat Psychol. 1997;8(1):47-63. doi: 10.1207/s15327108ijap0801_3.
9
A selective review of selective attention research from the past century.对上个世纪选择性注意研究的一项选择性综述。
Br J Psychol. 2001 Feb;92(Pt 1):53-78.

悲剧性选择与技术责任差距之美德

Tragic Choices and the Virtue of Techno-Responsibility Gaps.

作者信息

Danaher John

机构信息

School of Law, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland.

出版信息

Philos Technol. 2022;35(2):26. doi: 10.1007/s13347-022-00519-1. Epub 2022 Mar 30.

DOI:10.1007/s13347-022-00519-1
PMID:35378903
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8967079/
Abstract

There is a concern that the widespread deployment of autonomous machines will open up a number of 'responsibility gaps' throughout society. Various articulations of such techno-responsibility gaps have been proposed over the years, along with several potential solutions. Most of these solutions focus on 'plugging' or 'dissolving' the gaps. This paper offers an alternative perspective. It argues that techno-responsibility gaps are, sometimes, to be welcomed and that one of the advantages of autonomous machines is that they enable us to embrace certain kinds of responsibility gap. The argument is based on the idea that human morality is often tragic. We frequently confront situations in which competing moral considerations pull in different directions and it is impossible to perfectly balance these considerations. This heightens the burden of responsibility associated with our choices. We cope with the tragedy of moral choice in different ways. Sometimes we delude ourselves into thinking the choices we make were not tragic (illusionism); sometimes we delegate the tragic choice to others (delegation); sometimes we make the choice ourselves and bear the psychological consequences (responsibilisation). Each of these strategies has its benefits and costs. One potential advantage of autonomous machines is that they enable a reduced cost form of delegation. However, we only gain the advantage of this reduced cost if we accept that some techno-responsibility gaps are virtuous.

摘要

人们担心自主机器的广泛应用会在全社会造成一系列“责任缺口”。多年来,针对此类技术责任缺口提出了各种阐述以及一些潜在解决方案。这些解决方案大多侧重于“填补”或“消除”这些缺口。本文提供了另一种观点。文章认为,技术责任缺口有时是值得欢迎的,自主机器的优势之一在于它们使我们能够接受某些类型的责任缺口。这一论点基于人类道德往往具有悲剧性的观点。我们经常面临相互冲突的道德考量朝不同方向拉扯的情况,而且不可能完美地平衡这些考量。这加重了与我们的选择相关的责任负担。我们以不同方式应对道德选择的悲剧性。有时我们自欺欺人地认为自己做出的选择并非悲剧性的(幻觉主义);有时我们将悲剧性的选择委托给他人(委托);有时我们自己做出选择并承担心理后果(责任化)。这些策略各有其利弊。自主机器的一个潜在优势在于它们能实现成本更低的委托形式。然而,只有当我们承认某些技术责任缺口是有益的时候,我们才能获得这种成本降低的优势。