18 Amendments of Tadeusz ZWIEFKA related to 2015/2103(INL)
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas there is a need to create a generally accepted definition of robot and AI that is flexible and is not hindering innovation;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas according to the robotics sector researchers and innovators it might be too early to create a liability framework for robots and AI, adding that at this stage it could hinder innovation;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas at the same time the development of robotics and AI may result in a large part of the work now done by humans being taken over by robots, so raising concerns about the future of employment and the viability of social security systems if the current basis of taxation is maintained, creating the potential for increased inequality in the distribution of wealth and influenc; notes that robotics technology has the potential to transform lives and work practices, raise efficiency and safety levels, provide enhanced level of services. Its impact will grow over time as will the interaction between robots and people;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas the development of Robotics and AI will definitely influence the landscape of the workplace what may create new liability concerns and eliminate others; whereas the legal responsibility need to be clarified from both business sight model, as well as the workers design pattern, in case emergency or problems occur;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital S
Recital S
S. whereas the more autonomous robots are, the less they can be considered simple tools in the hands of other actors (such as the manufacturer, the owner, the user, etc.); whereas this, in turn, makesquestions whether the ordinary rules on liability inare sufficient and calls for new rules which focus on how a machine can be held – partly or entirely –or whether it calls for specific principles and rules to provide clarity on the legal liability of actors, their responsibleility for its acts orand omissions; whereas, as a consequence, it becomes more and more urgent to address the fundamental quest of robots the cause of which cannot be traced back to a specific human agent and whether the acts or omissions of whether robots should possess a legal statusrobots which have caused harm could have been foreseen and avoided;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital T
Recital T
T. whereas, ultimately, robots' autonomy raises the question of their nature in the light of the existing legal categories – of whether they should be regarded as natural persons, legal persons, animals or objects – or whether a new category should be created, with its own specific features and implications as regards the attribution of rights and duties, including liability for damagecharacteristics at law;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph U a (new)
Paragraph U a (new)
Ua. whereas according to the current legal framework product liability - where the producer of a product is liable for a malfunction- and rules governing liability for harmful actions -where the user of a product is liable for a behaviour that leads to harm- apply to damages caused by robots or AI;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital V
Recital V
V. whereas in the scenario where a robot can take autonomous decisions, the traditional rules will not suffice to activate a robot's liability, since they wouldmay not make it possible to identify the party responsible for providing compensation and to require this party to make good the damage ithe robot has caused;
Amendment 259 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17 a. Believes that medicine robots continue to make inroads into the provision of high accuracy surgery and in performing repetitive procedures. They have the potential to improve outcomes in rehabilitation, and provide highly effective logistics support within hospitals;
Amendment 275 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20 a. Strongly believes that in the medium term robotics technology will have a far more influential effect on the competitiveness of non -manufacturing industries such as agriculture, transport, healthcare, security and utilities;
Amendment 286 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
Amendment 297 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Considers that robots' civil liability is a crucial issue which needs to be addressed at EU level so as to ensure the same degree of transparency, consistency and legal certainty throughout the European Union for the benefit of consumers and businesses alikethe question of the possibility to grant civil liability to robots should be in depth analysed and consulted with all interested and relevant stakeholders;
Amendment 302 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24 a. Notes that development of robotics technology will require more understanding for the common ground needed around joint human-robot activity, which should be based on two core interdependence relationships as predictability and directability; points out that these two interdependence relationships are crucial for determining what information need to be shared between humans and robots and how a common basis between humans and robots can be achieved in order to enable smooth human-robot joint action;
Amendment 334 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 – introductory part
Paragraph 31 – introductory part
31. Calls on the Commission, when carrying out an impact assessment of its future legislative instrument, to explore, analyse and consult the implications of all possible legal solutions, such as:
Amendment 340 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 – point b
Paragraph 31 – point b
b) ensuring that a compensation fund would not only serve the purpose of guaranteeing compensation if the damage caused by a robot was not covered by an insurance – which would in any case remain its primary goal – but also that of allowing various financial operations in the interests of the robot, such as investments, donations or payments made to smart autonomous robots for their services, which could be transferred to the fund;
Amendment 345 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 – point c
Paragraph 31 – point c
c) allowing the manufacturer, the programmer, the owner or the user to benefit from limited liability insofar as smart autonomous robots would be endowed with a compensation fund – to which all parties could contribute in varying proportions –jointly take out insurance to guarantee compensation where damage is caused by a robot and to consequently benefit from limited liabilities as apportioned in such insurance policy, and damage to property could only be claimed for within the liremits of that fund,insurance policy while other types of damage will not being subject to such limits;
Amendment 353 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 – point f
Paragraph 31 – point f
f) possibility of creating a specific legal status for robots, so that at least the most sophisticated autonomous robots could be established as having the status of electronic persons with specific rights and obligations, including that of making good any damage they may cause, and possibility to applying electronic personality to cases where robots make smart autonomous decisions or otherwise interact with third parties independently;
Amendment 376 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex (after subheading ‘Disclosure of use of robots and artificial intelligence by undertakings’)
Annex (after subheading ‘Disclosure of use of robots and artificial intelligence by undertakings’)