The Effect of Rationality, Intelligence and Emotions on the Moral-Legal Agency of Artificial Intelligence from the Perspective of Modern Cognitive Science
akhlāq-i pizishkī i.e., Medical Ethics,
Vol. 18 (1403),
29 Mordad 2024
,
Page 1-19
https://doi.org/10.22037/mej.v18i.47225
Abstract
Background and Aim: The main objective of this article is to investigate the role of rationality, intelligence and emotions as mental-physical components in the moral-legal agency of artificial intelligence, based on the findings and achievements of contemporary cognitive science. Moral-legal agency of AI refers to the ability of AI systems to make independent decisions and to be held accountable for the consequences of their decisions.
Methods: This is a review study. The necessary resources and data were collected through library research and by accessing reputable domestic databases such as Civilica and Magiran and international databases such as Scopus, using books and articles from 2009-2024. A total of 72 articles and books (67 English and 5 Persian sources) were selected as the main sources for the final review. Of these 72 documents, 22 sources are directly related to the research findings, which are mentioned in the findings section.
Ethical Considerations: This research was conducted in full compliance with all ethical considerations regarding honesty and originality of texts.
Results: Currently, according to the prevailing view of cognitive scientists, due to the algorithmic and non-biological structure of AI systems and the lack of inherent rationality (lack of self, self-awareness, a perspective containing its own beliefs and preferences), the lack of high-level fluid intelligence and the lack of the biological and anatomical structure of the human nervous and brain system for emotional perception, it is not possible to speak of independent moral-legal agency for AI. Conversely, some researchers believe in minimal or participatory agency of AI. However, with the advancement of AI in the areas of human-like phenomenal and mental components (such as emotional perception, fluid intelligence, self and self-awareness), it may be possible in the future to attribute independent moral and legal agency to them.
Conclusion: Although AI currently lacks the mental capabilities necessary for independent agency, with the development and advancement of this technology in the future, if AI is equipped with human-like mental abilities (inherent rationality, fluid intelligence and emotional perception), achieving independent moral-legal agency will not be out of reach.
- Rationality
- Intelligence
- Emotions
- Moral Agency
- Artificial Intelligence
How to Cite
References
Legg S, Hutter M. Universal intelligence: A definition of machine intelligence. Minds and machines. 2007;17:391-444.
Mirdarikondi R. Analytical comparison of religious reason and cognitive intelligence. Marifat. 2011;20(4):35-52.
Stanovich KE. On the distinction between rationality and intelligence: Implications for understanding individual differences in reasoning. The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning. 2012:343-65.
Damasio A. Descartes Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain. London: Penguin Vintage Publishing; 2006.
Khazaei Z. Rationality of Ethics. Journal of Religious Thought. 2007;6(21):23-50.
Stanovich KE, Toplak ME. The need for intellectual diversity in psychological science: Our own studies of actively open-minded thinking as a case study. Cognition. 2019;187:156-66.
Nyamori D. Exploring the Relationship between Moral Decision-Making and Emotional Intelligence.
Valtonen L. Rationality in artificial intelligence decision-making. 2023.
Nishant R, Schneckenberg D, Ravishankar M. The formal rationality of artificial intelligence-based algorithms and the problem of bias. Journal of Information Technology. 2024;39(1):19-40.
Arvan M, Maley CJ. Panpsychism and AI consciousness. Synthese. 2022;200(3):244.
Damasio A. The Strange Order of Things: Life, Feeling, and the Making of Cultures New York: Pantheon Books, 336 s. Filozofia. 2018;73(6):481.
Wróblewski Z, Fortuna P. Moral subjectivity and the moral status of artificial intelligence: A Philosophical and Psychological Perspective. Ethos (0860-8024). 2023;36(144).
Zeng Y, Zhao F, Zhao Y, Zhao D, Lu E, Zhang Q, et al. Brain-inspired and self-based artificial intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:240218784. 2024.
Marwala T. Rational choice and artificial intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:170310098. 2017.
Northoff G, Gouveia SS. Does artificial intelligence exhibit basic fundamental subjectivity? A neurophilosophical argument. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. 2024:1-22.
Nath R, Manna R. From posthumanism to ethics of artificial intelligence. AI & Society. 2023;38(1):185-96.
Vicci DH. Emotional intelligence in artificial intelligence: A review and evaluation study. Available at SSRN 4818285. 2024.
Gouiaa R, Bazarna A. The interaction between rationality, politics and artificial intelligence in the decision-making process. Corporate Governance and Organizational Behavior Review. 2023;7(4):263-71.
Monteiro WR, Ayrosa EAT. From Analog To Algorithm: a comprehensive review of Artificial Intelligence's intersection with Management Literature and Actor-Network Theory. Brazilian Journal of Information Science. 2024(18):13.
Venturini T. Bruno Latour and artificial intelligence. Tecnoscienza–Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies. 2023;14(2):101-14.
Reed M. The Classification of Artificial Intelligence as" Social Actors". 2018.
Waelbers K. Technological delegation: Responsibility for the unintended. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2009;15:51-68.
O’Regan JK. How to build a robot that is conscious and feels. Minds and machines. 2012;22:117-36.
Booch G, Fabiano F, Horesh L, Kate K, Lenchner J, Linck N, et al. Thinking fast and slow in AI. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2021. pp. 15042-15046.
Kapoor A, Verma V. Emotion AI: understanding emotions through artificial intelligence. International Journal of Engineering Science and Humanities. 2024;14(Special Issue 1):223-32.
Zuo G, Pan T, Zhang T, Yang Y. SOAR improved artificial neural network for multistep decision-making tasks. Cognitive Computation. 2021;13(3):612-25.
Pandey P. Emotional Intelligence Skills in the Age of AI: A.
Pan W, Yang Y. Virtual affective consciousness and raw social AI. Computational Social Science: Routledge; 2022. p. 3-9.
Russell SJ. Rationality and intelligence. Artificial intelligence. 1997;94(1-2):57-77.
Sun R. Dual-process theories, cognitive architectures, and hybrid neural-symbolic models. Neurosymbolic Artificial Intelligence. (Preprint):1-9.
Sheth A, Roy K, Gaur M. Neurosymbolic AI--Why, What, and How. arXiv preprint arXiv:230500813. 2023.
Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow: macmillan; 2011.
Stanovich KE. Distinguishing the reflective, algorithmic, and autonomous minds: Is it time for a tri-process theory. In two minds: Dual processes and beyond. 2009:55-88.
Burgoyne AP, Mashburn CA, Tsukahara JS, Hambrick DZ, Engle RW. Understanding the relationship between rationality and intelligence: A latent-variable approach. Thinking & Reasoning. 2023;29(1):1-42.
Russell S. Rationality and intelligence. Foundations of rational agency: Springer; 1999. p. 11-33.
Russell SJ, Norvig P. Artificial intelligence: a modern approach: pearson; 2016.
Nath R. A Cartesian critique of the artificial intelligence. 2010.
Lindebaum D, Vesa M, Den Hond F. Insights from “the machine stops” to better understand rational assumptions in algorithmic decision making and its implications for organizations. Academy of Management Review. 2020;45(1):247-63.
Raphael MW. Artificial intelligence and the situational rationality of diagnosis: human problem‐solving and the artifacts of health and medicine. Sociology Compass. 2022;16(11):e13047.
Northoff G, Smith D. The subjectivity of self and its ontology: From the world–brain relation to the point of view in the world. Theory & Psychology. 2023;33(4):485-514.
Searle JR. Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and brain sciences. 1980;3(3):417-24.
Cavanna AE, Nani A. Consciousness: Theories in neuroscience and philosophy of mind: Springer; 2014.
Chiang CC, Shivacharan RS, Wei X, Gonzalez‐Reyes LE, Durand DM. Slow periodic activity in the longitudinal hippocampal slice can self‐propagate non‐synaptically by a mechanism consistent with ephaptic coupling. The Journal of physiology. 2019;597(1):249-69.
Cattell RB. Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of educational psychology. 1963;54(1):1.
Horn JL. Organization of abilities and the development of intelligence. Psychological review. 1968;75(3):242.
Horn JL. Intelligence—why it grows, why it declines. Human intelligence: Routledge; 2020. p. 53-74.
Flanagan DP, Ortiz SO, Alfonso VC. Essentials of cross-battery assessment: John Wiley & Sons; 2013.
Carroll JB. The Three-Stratum Theory of Cognitive Abilities. New York: Guilford Press; 1997.
Davidson I, Walker PB, editors. Towards fluid machine intelligence: Can we make a gifted AI? Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence; 2019. pp. 9760-9764.
Ray KS. Quest for I (Intelligence) in AI (Artificial Intelligence): A non-elusive attempt. Artificial Intelligence-Latest Advances, New Paradigms and Novel Applications. 2021.
Jones K. Quick and smart? Modularity and the pro-emotion consensus. Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supplementary Volume. 2006;32:3-27.
Goleman D. Emotional intelligence, imagination, cognition and personality. Personality and Individual Differences. Vol. 1995;9:185-211.
Mayer JD, Salovey P, Caruso DR. Target Articles:" emotional intelligence: Theory, findings, and Implications". Psychological inquiry. 2004;15(3):197-215.
Damasio AR. The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of consciousness: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt; 1999.
O'Regan JK. Why red doesn't sound like a bell: Understanding the feel of consciousness: Oxford University Press; 2011.
Valiant LG, editor Knowledge infusion: In pursuit of robustness in artificial intelligence. IARCS Annual Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science (2008); 2008: Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik.
Marcus G, Davis E. Rebooting AI: Building artificial intelligence we can trust: Vintage; 2019.
Marcos-Pablos S, Lobato F, García-Peñalvo F. Integrating emotion recognition tools for developing emotionally intelligent agents. 2022.
Russell JA. A circumplex model of affect. Journal of personality and social psychology. 1980;39(6):1161.
Zhou Q. Multi-layer affective computing model based on emotional psychology. Electronic Commerce Research. 2018;18(1):109-24.
Shu L, Xie J, Yang M, Li Z, Li Z, Liao D, et al. A review of emotion recognition using physiological signals. Sensors. 2018;18(7):2074.
Ivanović M, Budimac Z, Radovanović M, Kurbalija V, Dai W, Bădică C, et al. Emotional agents-state of the art and applications. Computer science and information systems. 2015;12(4):1121-48.
Beorlegui C. Emergentism. Pensamiento Revista de Investigación e Información Filosófica. 2009;65(246 S. Esp):881-914.
Dreyfus HL. What computers still can't do: A critique of artificial reason: MIT press; 1992.
Tononi G. An information integration theory of consciousness. BMC neuroscience. 2004;5:1-22.
Searle J. Freedom and Neurobiology: Reflections on Free Will, Language and Political Power. New York: Columbia University Press; 2007.
Okon-Singer H, Hendler T, Pessoa L, Shackman AJ. The neurobiology of emotion–cognition interactions: fundamental questions and strategies for future research. Frontiers in human neuroscience. 2015;9:58.
Naudé W. Artificial Intelligence and the Economics of Decision-Making. 2023.
Latour B. Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory: Oxford university press; 2005.
Waelbers K, Dorstewitz P. Ethics in actor networks, or: What Latour could Learn from Darwin and Dewey. Science and engineering ethics. 2014;20(1):23-40.
Ingold T. When ANT meets SPIDER: Social theory for arthropods. Material agency: towards a non-anthropocentric approach. 2008:209-15.
Sharifzadeh R. Technology, agency and decision. Strategy for Culture. 2016;9(34):115-36.
- Abstract Viewed: 281 times