Paweł Księżak | University of Lodz (original) (raw)

Papers by Paweł Księżak

[ Research paper thumbnail of Sztuczna inteligencja jako wychowawca, opiekun i reprezentant W poszukiwaniu definicji rodziny[1](https://attachments.academia-assets.com/111059155/thumbnails/1.jpg)

Praw i Więź, 2023

Artificial Intelligence as Educator, Caregiver, and Representative. In Search of a Definition of ... more Artificial Intelligence as Educator, Caregiver, and Representative. In Search of a Definition of Family Artificial intelligence (ai) is becoming a significant factor in family life. Increasingly sophisticated autonomous systems and robots controlled by artificial intelligence will allow some of the parental duties related to custody, upbringing, and even representation of the child to be carried out. This phenomenon is forcing the search for legal qualifications for parents to entrust certain decisions to machines. The author argues that the solution is to grant ai residual partial subjectivity to the extent needed to link it to its social function. A condition for such subjectivity would be registration in a public register, preceded by specific certification. It means that in the long term, ai will become an integral part of family life.

Głos Prawa , 2022

The body is the boundary between subject and object. Things, including those used by man, always ... more The body is the boundary between subject and object. Things, including those used by man, always have a different legal status from man. The living organism homo sapiens is a physical person, a subject that is in certain relations to what is outside it, while it is not in an ownership relationship with itself. But how do we assess objects permanently connected to the body? Do they become part of the body and therefore a constituent part of the subject, or do they continue to be things whose status can be assessed according to the regulations proper to things? Or is their status somehow different, intermediate between object and subject? Perhaps the answers to these questions require a paradigm shift according to which the body is the boundary of the subject. The subject can reach beyond the body, but can also include artificial objects, including but not limited to those that have been fused with the body.

Głos Prawa. Przegląd Prawniczy Allerhanda, 2021

European Review of Private Law, 2021

Although a number of European Union legal documents require AI to be transparent, this is frequen... more Although a number of European Union legal documents require AI to be transparent, this is frequently not the case. Such opacity can be attributed to a diverse range of causes, ranging from so called ‘black box’ algorithms, trade secrets and patents, to the cognitive barriers of non-professionals. Transparency, in contrast, is, in many cases, indispensable for establishing generic or specific causation in deciding civil law cases, especially within the scope of contractual or tort liability. Therefore, the concept of causation applied in various parts of civil law should be rethought, and some remedies for this problem should be adopted.

Przegląd Sejmowy, 2021

We, the People? Constitutionalisation of artificial intelligence, or the need to remodel systemic... more We, the People? Constitutionalisation of artificial intelligence, or the need to remodel systemic assumptions •• The development of artificial intelligence raises many ethical and legal challenges. The discussion concerns mainly the issues of competition and consumer protection law, personal data protection law, civil liability, contract law, however the key issue, so far neglected in the literature, may be the problem of systemic nature connected with the question of the necessity to regulate AI at the constitutional level. Such a need arises from the recognition of the role that AI will soon play in the state and society. Safeguarding human rights will require the introduction of a fundamental norm that expresses the idea of the superior position of humans over machines (autonomous systems). However, such a seemingly obvious norm, understood literally, is not at all certain when superhuman efficiency (also intellectual) of machines is taken into account. As a consequence, such a norm-derived from human dignity-may stand in unresolvable opposition to the needs of the technological system. The search for a new constitutional model that responds to these challenges should begin today.

Forum Prawnicze, 2020

On the 16th of February 2017 the European Parliament by the Resolution 2015/2103(INL) called on t... more On the 16th of February 2017 the European Parliament by the Resolution
2015/2103(INL) called on the European Commission to elaborate new solutions based on civil law that could respond to the rapid present-day development of robotics and AI. The Resolution indicates Asimov’s Laws as one of the bases of civil law rules on robotics. The authors of the article analyse whether, taking the professional legal perspective, the Laws may really play such a role adequately. Their analysis reveals that because of many reasons the Laws are not good instruments for drafting legal rules. Even if the Laws are treated as very general ethical recommendations they rather cause confusions and unsolvable problems than give real directives. The authors speculate that referring to them was an expression of attachment of the EP to the old androidal paradigm of robotics assumed decades ago and still strongly present in popular culture.

Law, Innovation and Technology, 2020

In 2017, the European Parliament issued a Resolution calling on the Commission to elaborate new s... more In 2017, the European Parliament issued a Resolution calling on the Commission to elaborate new solutions based on civil law that could respond to the rapid present-day development of robotics and AI. The Resolution, pushing for the preparation of new tort law focusing on robots, postulates that a new definition of robot be prepared. Responding to the Resolution, this paper consists in a legal-cognitive-linguistic analysis which draws three conclusions: firstly, that the definitional method is not the best approach to determining the scope of the regulation of robotics and AI; secondly, that the Resolution is incorrect in assuming that a new civil law solution should turn on differentiating between AI and robots and that robots should be treated as focal in determining the scope of the regulation; and, thirdly, that any new norms should be rooted in the concept of AI and not, as proposed by the Resolution, in the concept of robot.

Drafts by Paweł Księżak

Advanced Research in Technologies, Information, Innovation and Sustainability Second International Conference, ARTIIS 2022, Santiago de Compostela, Spain, September 12–15, 2022, Revised Selected Papers, Part II, 2022

In 2020, the Independent Expert Group published the "Ethics of Connected and Automated Vehicles: ... more In 2020, the Independent Expert Group published the "Ethics of Connected and Automated Vehicles: recommendations on road safety, privacy, fairness, explainability and responsibility" report. This document represents a significant step towards systematizing the ongoing debate on ethical issues related to autonomic AI systems, especially Connected Automated Vehicles (CAVs). However, the report does not address the conflict between the values of human autonomy and safety, which becomes apparent when considering who should have control over CAVs, and who is responsible for the results of human autonomy. This problem and these questions have therefore become the subject of this paper. The analysis implied the following: either the human driver will be forbidden from driving, which is tantamount to admitting Asimov's Second Law à rebours, i.e. a human being must obey the commands of a robot, or the human driver should be held fully responsible for overriding the decisions of the AI controlling the CAV. The choice between these two options must be made by the law maker according to the ethical rules within a culture.

Books by Paweł Księżak

In the book, I present fundamental problems for private law related to human technological enhanc... more In the book, I present fundamental problems for private law related to human technological enhancement. The combination of man and machine, especially when controlled by artificial intelligence, raises questions about subjectivity, the status of the human body, participation in civil law, and civil liability. It is necessary to develop the assumptions of a new cyborg law.

From the book:
“Therefore, it is not just that in certain situations an act (statement) may no longer be attributed to a person (making an allegation, linking legal consequences), but that such human behaviours may reasonably be attributed to the action of a machine (algorithm) that is integrated with the body (or, more generally, influences the functioning of the body). This would make a human being merely a messenger, a transmitter of the will of another entity.” “With increasing cyborgisation, it will be impossible—without proper digital identification—to determine the parameters of a given human being that will affect the extent of their social rights and obligations. Only by knowing the “nameplate”, which states, for example, whether a person is permanently connected to the internet or digitally records all impulses perceived by the senses, will it be possible to establish the conditions under which entering into civil law relations with such a person may be deemed conscious and correct. As a result, the law will be personalised and every individual will have their tailored, personal statute, which will determine their position in the market.” „Clearly, regardless of the nature of AI integration with humans, it will perform a subservient function, and it is only in this context that its status can be analysed. (...) However, the symbiosis with machines, which by virtue of their autonomy must be considered as something more than mere automatons serving to convey human will, must lead to a constant coupling and a kind of looping of the two entities, the external effect of which is the homogeneity of the decision obtained.”

The growth of Artificial Intelligence (in the remainder of this book called “AI”) and robotics in... more The growth of Artificial Intelligence (in the remainder of this book called “AI”) and robotics in recent years has highlighted the pressing need to create a suitable legal framework. The debate on the subject is presently of quite general and preliminary character, despite many European acts and proposals for acts, and a plenitude of scientific books, reports and articles: its most important fields are being slowly defined, with the most pressing goal being the definition of the ethical foundations underpinning the further expansion of AI. In these preparatory works, there is a clear need to develop appropriate new civil law arrangements. Of all the branches of private law it is this one that has the greatest need for the settlement of new rules. Autonomous vehicles, medical robots, or expertise software demand essential questions on aspects of civil liability, such as culpability; in addition the growth in popularity of automated, intelligent software systems for concluding contracts requires a new approach to be taken to many fundamental and rooted contract law institutions, inter alia consciousness, intent, error, deception, interpretation of contract and good faith. Ruling on these specific matters demands the crystallisation of certain key points, which shall become the foundation for constructing a new AI/robot civil law. However, the current discussion on the civil law and AI is sketchy, superficial and lacks any reasonable order. A holistic coherent view on the issue of the civil law bases for the participation of AI in legal transactions is still lacking.