58 Amendments of Ádám KÓSA related to 2015/2103(INL)
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas ageing is the result of an increased life expectancy due to progress in modern medicine, and is one of the greatest social and economic challenges of the 21st century for European societies; whereas by 2025 more than 20% of Europeans will be 65 or over, with a particularly rapid increase in numbers of over 80s, and whereas it is in the interest of society and families that older people should remain healthy and active for as long as possible;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. considers that there is an urgent need to examine whether the spread of robots brings welfare and progress per se if this happens in situations in which human labour is unnecessary within the traditional production and service structure – in other words, what conditions are needed in addition to financial security to ensure that people remain healthy (in terms of mental and physical wellbeing), happy and active;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas cyber-physical systems (CPS) are technical systems of network computers, robots and artificial intelligence that interact with the physan integrated artificial worldenvironment and have numerous applications in the healthcare sector, and whereas it may be possible for some elements even to be implanted in the human body;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that guiding ethical rules and principles for the design, engineering and use of robots and artificial intelligence are needed to complement the European legal framework; in order to ensure that this technology does indeed improve people’s quality of life;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas such systems will provide the foundation and the basis of emerging and future smart services, and will bring advances in personalised health care, emergency response and telemedicine, and whereas their application raises far- reaching issues of ethics, human rights and social philosophy, particularly with regard to self-determination and integrity of the person;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Believes that robotics and artificial intelligence, especially those with built-in autonomy and the possibility of self- learning, should be subjected to the primary robotics laws or principles, such as a principle that a robot may do not harm to a human being and must obey a human being; these principles should also be in compliance with the rights and principles enshrined in the CFR, in particular human dignity, the respect for private and family life, the protection of personal data, the freedom of expression and information, equality and non-discrimination, solidarity, and citizens’ rights and justice, particularly in the case of cyber-physical systems (CPS) that can be worn on or implanted in the human body;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. acknowledges that the adoption of new technologies in the field of healthcare is likely to bring major benefits in terms of patient care and effectiveness and precision of treatment, leading to increased quality of life and life expectancy, which, however, may yet further accentuate the challenges presented to societies by aging, while at the same time they may moderate the degree of dependence;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. underlines that education must pave the way for the next generation to be able to live fully productive lives in a world which will be changed by robotisation and automation; stresses the importance of the flexibility of skills and emphasises the importance of life skills and social skills in education; is certain that, in addition to schools teaching academic knowledge, children need to acquire thinking skills to be able to question, creative skills to be able to put ideas into action and lifelong learning needs to be realised through lifelong acting; underlines that digital competences need to be part of the basic curriculum;
Amendment 33 #
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 undesirable potential for increased inequality in the distribution of wealth and influence;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. underlines that innovation providing better diagnoses and better insights into treatment, care and rehabilitation options may leads to more accurate and rapid medical decisions, quicker recovery times, and could therefore alleviate shortages of healthcare and rehabilitation professionals in care and rehabilitation processes;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Reiterates that the right to the protection of private life and the right to the protection of personal data as enshrined in Article 7 and 8 CFR and Article 16 TFEU apply to all areas of robotics and artificial intelligence and that the Union legal framework for data protection must be fully complied with, particularly in the case of cyber-physical systems (CPS) which are worn on or implanted in the human body;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission to ensure that any Union legislation on robotics and artificial intelligence will include rules on privacy and data protection, the requirement to follow principles of privacy by design and by default as well as principles of proportionality and necessity regarding the processing of data, in view of the fact that cyber-physical systems (CPS) are systems which comprise networked computers, robots and artificial intelligence and which interact with an integrated, artificial environment, and that certain elements of these systems can be worn on the human body or even implanted in the human body, all of which raises far-reaching ethical, human rights and social-philosophical questions, particularly with regard to self- determination, personal integrity and data protection; calls for the review of rules, principles and criteria regarding the use of cameras and sensors in robots and artificial intelligence in accordance with the Union legal framework for data protection;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. notes that CPS – whether without contact with the human body or else worn on the human body or implanted in it – are able to change the life of people suffering from a disability, as smart technologies can be used for prevention, assistance, monitoring and companionshipto provide a social, interactive (natural or artificial) environment;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Underlines that the free flow of data is a basis for the digital economy and is essential for the development of robotics; highlights, however, that high security of robotics and artificial intelligence systems as a whole, including their internal data systems and data flows, is crucial for the adequate utilisation of robots and artificial intelligence, particularly in the case of cyber-physical systems (CPS) which can be worn on or implanted in the human body; stresses that a high level of safety, security and privacy of data used for the communication between people and robots and artificial intelligence, including the basic principle that it is the person wearing the device who has the right to dispose of devices worn on or in the human body and of the data collected by these devices, together with high quality of voice recognition systems, has to be ensured; calls on the Commission and Member States to support and incentivise the development of the necessary technology, including security by design and channels of communication, bearing in mind that the development of robotics can leave people in a vulnerable position, which in turn can lead to conflicts of interest between individuals and society, so that these innovations should only be supported if humans’ inalienable rights are also protected;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. stresses that an answer must be found to the question of what employment provisions might be necessary in terms of the competitiveness of the labour force if the artificial or genetic development or supplementing of existing human capabilities results in people with extraordinary abilities, thereby altering the meaning of the term 'disability' and conferring an unassailable advantage on people with access to such tools and interventions, and in this regard points out that as human dignity is at the centre of European and international human rights law, it is important to examine how it can be ensured that those who are not yet classified as disabled do not find themselves in the same situation as those living with intellectual disabilities and whether people living with intellectual disabilities will in the future be able to take fully-fledged decisions in the form of supported decision-making as outlined in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities with the help of robots and how responsibility will be divided among them;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. stresses that although CPS has the potential to enhance the mobility and sociability of people with disabilities and elderly people, human caregivers will still be needed and provide an important source of social interaction for them; notes that, as well as monitoring the artificial infrastructure; is convinced that it is essential for the use of CPS technologies orand robots can onto be unambiguously regulated so that those technologies genuinely augment human care and make the rehabilitation process more targeted, so that medical staff and caregivers can allocate more time for diagnosis and better treatment options;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. notes that early forms of robots and smart CPS devices are already used in healthcare, such as e-Health devices and surgical robots and that in the near future this technology will continue to develop, having the potential on the one hand to also reduce healthcare costs in the field concerned, while on the other hand, as CPS systems are capable of storing in their memories every instruction and observation they register during an operation or other medical intervention, these data may serve as evidence in the event of an error by the CPS and/or the doctor and may constitute a basis for compensation cases;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Underlines that an emotional connection may develop between the human and the robot ‒ particularly in vulnerable groups (children, the elderly and people with disabilities) ‒ and highlights the serious emotional or physical impact that this emotional attachment could have on the human user if the CPS is turned off, or if data is lost or deleted;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas the 'soft impacts' on human dignity may be difficult to estimate, but will still need to be considered if and when robots replace human care and companionship, and whereas questions of human dignity also can arise in the context of 'repairing' or enhancing human beings and human dignity must always remain priority;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. acknowledges that surgical robots have been envisaged to extend the capabilities of human surgeons beyond the limits of conventional laparoscopy, and that the development of surgical robots is rooted in the desire to overcome such limitations and to expand the benefits of minimally invasive surgery, fine movements and accuracy, but also considers it conceivable that in future, in some cases, surgical robots may even perform routine interventions without medical supervision;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. points out that, whilst robotics and artificial intelligence promise real advantages in the short and medium term in terms of effectiveness and economy not only for production and trade but also in areas where human intelligence hitherto meant there were only humans, such as the customer service sector in which large numbers of sometimes low-skilled people are employed in service industries and offices (whose work will be increasingly unnecessary), there is a danger of the number of jobs in the field of robotics not increasing to match the number of jobs which are expected to be lost in areas such as transport, logistics and office work;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. underlines that CPS allow for telesurgery, with numerous advantages such as increased precision of hand motion, removing tremor from hand motion, magnified view, improved dexterity and remote surgerywhich they can analyse and assess immediately, improved dexterity and remote surgery, while it must be a fundamental requirement for doctors to acquire skills and accreditation for the performance of interventions with individual CPS devices;
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Considers that appropriate legislation should be accompanied by encouragement of a soft law framework, code of conduct or public-private partnerships, in order to ensure the cooperation of the industry and robotic designers with public authorities; believes that such instruments should focus on practical solutions to ensure privacy and data protection, the security and ethics of the robotics industry, and the proper use of robots and artificial intelligence on a daily basis; highlights the risk of CPS in the human body being hacked or turned off, or memory being deleted, as this could endanger people’s health, or in extreme cases people’s lives, and therefore stresses that protecting these systems is paramount;
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. calls on the Commission to consider adapting the existing trial procedures designed for testing medicines to the purpose of testing new medical robotic devices, particularly in the case of devices that are implanted in the human body;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
M. whereas, nevertheless, a series of cyber-physical systems (CPS) are systems which comprise networked computers, robots and artificial intelligence and which interact with an integrated, artificial environment, and certain elements of these systems can be worn on the human body or even implanted in the human body, their use raises far-reaching ethical, human rights and social-philosophical questions, particularly with regard to self- determination, personal integrity and data protection, therefore a series of strict rules, governing in particular liability and ethics and reflecting the intrinsically European and humanistic values and the basic principles set out in international and European human rights conventions that characterise Europe'’s contribution to society, are necessary;
Amendment 76 #
7a. It should be a basic principle that nobody can be discriminated against because a CPS or another enabling technology is an integral part of their body, whether the smart technology has been implanted in the human body to treat a condition, compensate for a disability or improve the capabilities of the human body; in this respect, questions must be answered regarding the point at which humans cease to be humans and become robots, which may result in human rights being conferred on robots; research should be carried out to determine whether there is a difference between the rights of a robotic human (i.e. integrated with CPS) and those of a human robot (for example, the capacity to learn, feel emotions and potentially become conscious).
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. observes that CPS systems (supplemented by gene surgery) will be usable not only to cure sick people but also to improve the capacities of people who, according to our current conceptions, are healthy and will thus bring into existence special people with capacities that are not yet known, and that CPS systems may even become an integral part of the human body, transforming our conceptions of the human body and health, which may have a major impact on human society as a whole, for which reason care must be taken to ensure that those people who do not have access to such advanced technologies or do not wish to use them do not suffer discrimination in comparison with people who are integrated with CPS systems, avoiding any reduction in their social mobility and the possibility that (for example in education or on the labour market) they may be placed at a competitive disadvantage in comparison with people whose capacities have been enhanced;
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 b (new)
Paragraph 12 b (new)
12b. draws attention to the risks associated with the possibility that CPS systems integrated into the human body may be hacked or switched off or have their memories wiped, because this could endanger human health, and in extreme cases even human life, and stresses therefore the priority that must be attached to protecting such systems;
Amendment 83 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 c (new)
Paragraph 12 c (new)
12c. considers that it should be adopted as a principle that nobody may be discriminated against because a CPS system or other auxiliary technology constitutes an integral part of their body or because smart technology has been implanted in the human body for purposes of medical treatment, to compensate for some disability or to improve the capacities of the human body; considers that in this context it is necessary to establish, for example, for how long a person remains a human being and at what point they become a robot, which may result in robots being assigned human rights;
Amendment 85 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. acknowledges the vulnerability of patients with special needs, including children, elderly and people suffering from disabilities, whoand stresses that any user may develop an emotional connection with CPS and robots, and underlines the ethical considerations posed by their possible attachmentparticularly if the latter are capable of learning independently from their environment and expressing appropriate emotional reactions to human emotions, and underlines the ethical considerations posed by their possible attachment, for example the emotional or physical impact on people of the switching-off of a robot or the wiping of its memory;
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. an answer must be found to the questionfirmly believes that, as a matter of urgency, an answer must be found to the question of whether, as the result of further developments in robotics and less expensive solutions, there will be jobs in which the ability for humans to work will be restricted by law due to the harmful and/or dangerous nature of the work vis- à-vis human health (as with rules currently applicable for pregnant women) or for other reasons (as with rules applicable for notaries), and of which areas might see restrictions or a ban on total automation in order to safeguard employment levels, taking into account demographic changes and sustainability and any unintended social consequences.
Amendment 90 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. highlights the importance of preserving the patient-doctor care relationship, in particular as regards communication of the medical diagnosis and treatmentmedical diagnosis using data gathered by means of diagnostic CPS systems worn on or implanted in the body and communication of the treatment thus revealed to be necessary, avoiding the adverse consequences of faulty self- diagnosis;
Amendment 103 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. underlines that the safety of CPS systems implanted in the human body is a fundamental requirement, because any fault in them may be fatal, and in this context stresses the importance of providing information and of unambiguous regulation of issues of liability, including that of whose property these implanted CPS systems are, who has rights over them and who may change their implantation, strictly prohibiting any experimentation on people without their consent;
Amendment 105 #
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, may makes the ordinary rules on liability insufficient and may calls for new rules which focus on how a machine can be held – partly or entirely – responsible for its acts or omissions; whereas, as a consequence, it becomes more and more urgent to address the fundamental question of whether robots should possess a legal status;
Amendment 108 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16 b (new)
Paragraph 16 b (new)
16b. considers that CPS systems implanted in the human body must be regarded as an integral part of the human body, in the same way as human organs, and that the rules that apply to human organs must also be applied to them, bearing in mind also that switching off an implanted CPS system requires similarly strict regulation to euthanasia;
Amendment 113 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. stresses the need for clear regulation of the right to use data on health and life style obtained using CPS systems implanted in the human body, because the sharing of such data may assist the further development of medicine, while on the other hand it may make the individual vulnerable so that the interests of society and the individual come into conflict, and therefore calls on the Commission, with due regard for the inalienable rights of human beings, to regulate the use and storage of information gathered using such devices, with particular reference to innovation and research;
Amendment 117 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Research Ethics Committees (REC) should take into account the ethical questions raised by the development of medical robotic devices and CPS in many areas of healthcare and assistance to disabled and elderly people. Issues such as equality of access to robotic preventive health care, the privileged patient-doctor care relationship, and the susceptibility, in particular, of patients with special needs such as children(for example people with disabilities), but not only them (for example children, lonely people, etc.), to developing an emotional attachment to robots should be given due consideration.
Amendment 118 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. considers that it should be adopted as a principle that people who are integrated with CPS systems and people without such devices are equal, and in this context it is necessary to study such issues as what makes a human being human, what distinguishes human beings from robots, and in what ways they differ from roboticised people (or people integrated with CPS systems), and whether indeed they do so differ, and the rights of human robots (which for example are capable of learning and have emotions or knowledge).
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital Z
Recital Z
Z. whereas, notwithstanding the scope of the Directive 85/374/EEC, the current legal framework would not be sufficient to cover the damage caused by the new generation of robots, insofar as they can be equipped with adaptive and learning abilities entailing a certain degree of unpredictability in their behaviour, since these robots would autonomously learn from their own, variable experience and interact with their environment in a unique and unforeseeable manner, and whereas it cannot be predicted at which point in the learning process the robot will reach the level when it ceases to be a simple tool for human use;
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – introductory part
Paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Calls on the Commission to propose a common European definition of cyber physical systems, smart autonomous robots and their subcategories by taking into consideration the following characteristics of a smart robot:
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that a European system of registration of advanced robots should be introduced, and calls on the Commission to establish criteria for the classification of robots with a view to identifying the robots that would need to be registered;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that the potential for empowerment through the use of robotics is nuanced by a set of tensions or risks relating to human safety, privacy, integrity, dignity, autonomy and data ownership, therefore European and international human rights principles must also be considered valid in robotics in order to preserve human dignity and integrity, and since the development of robotics may make humans vulnerable, resulting in potential conflicts between the interests of individuals and society, innovation may only be supported together with the protection of unalienable human rights;
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Stresses that an emotional connection may develop between the human and the robot ‒ particularly in vulnerable groups (children, the elderly and people with disabilities) ‒ and highlights the issues raised by the serious emotional or physical impact that this emotional attachment could have on the human user if the cyber physical system (CPS) is turned off, or if data is lost or deleted;
Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Points out that the guiding ethical framework should be based on the principles of beneficence, non- maleficence and autonomygenerally established international and European human rights approach, as well as on the principles enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, such as human dignity and human rights, equality, justice and equity, non-discrimination and non- stigmatisation, autonomy and individual responsibility, informed consent, privacy and social responsibility, and on existing ethical practices and codes;
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that, in the development of any EU policy on robotics, privacy and data protection guarantees are embedded in line with the principles of necessity and proportionality; calls, in this regard, on the Commission to foster the development of standards for the concepts of privacy by design and privacy by default, informed consent and encryption, and highlights the risks of hacking, switching off or deleting the memories of cyber physical systems (CPS) integrated into human bodies, as this may pose a hazard to human health or, in an extreme case, human lives; therefore it stresses the priority of the protection of such systems;
Amendment 226 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Points out that the use of personal data as a 'currency' with which services can be 'bought' raises new issues in need of clarification; stresses that the use of personal data as a '‘currency'’ must not lead to a circumvention of the basic principles governing the right to privacy and data protection and that individuals always have the right to have a say in the control of their own data, including the principle that a person wearing a device on or in the human body should always be entitled to the right to have a say in the control of the device and the data collected by it;
Amendment 243 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new) (before heading ‘Care robots’)
Paragraph 15 a (new) (before heading ‘Care robots’)
15a. setting aside its positive impact on road safety, fuel consumption, the environment and the creation of new employment opportunities in the telecommunication and automotive sectors, the switch to automated vehicles might also lead to job losses in the transport sector and have consequences on the insurance sector, and these factors must therefore be taken into account;
Amendment 251 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Points out that human contact is one of the fundamental aspects of human care and must be preserved; believes that replacing the human factor with robots could dehumanise caring practices, the undesirable effects of which must be avoided to ensure that robotic technologies actually improve the quality of human lives;
Amendment 262 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Notes the great potential of robotics in the field of repairing and compensating for damaged organs and human functions, but also the complex questions raised in particular by the possibilities of human enhancement, as they may fundamentally change our concepts about the healthy human body, particularly in the case of cyber physical systems (CPS) that can be worn directly on the human body or implanted in the human body; asks for the establishment of committees on robot ethics in hospitals and other health care institutions tasked with considering and assisting in resolving unusual, complicated ethical problems involving issues that affect the care and treatment of patients; calls on the Commission and the Member States to develop guidelines to aid in the establishment and functioning of such committees;
Amendment 267 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new) (before heading ‘Drones (RPAS)’)
Paragraph 18 a (new) (before heading ‘Drones (RPAS)’)
18a. It should be a basic principle that nobody can be discriminated against because a cyber physical system (CPS) or another enabling technology is an integral part of their body, whether the smart technology has been implanted in the human body to treat a condition, compensate for a disability or improve the capabilities of the human body; in this respect, questions must be answered regarding the point at which humans cease to be humans and become robots, which may result in human rights being conferred on robots; research should be carried out to determine whether there is a difference between the rights of a robotic human (i.e. integrated with cyber physical systems) and those of a human robot (for example, the capacity to learn, feel emotions and potentially become conscious);
Amendment 272 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Draws attention to the Commission's forecast that by 2020 Europe might be facing a shortage of up to 825 000 ICT professionals and that 90 % of jobs will require at least basic digital skills; welcomes the Commission’s initiative of proposing a roadmap for the possible use and revision of a Digital Competence framework and descriptors of Digital Competences for all levels of learners; stresses the importance of the flexibility of skills and emphasises the importance of life skills and social skills in education; is certain that, in addition to schools teaching academic knowledge, children need to acquire critical thinking skills to be able to question and creative skills to be able to put ideas into action, and that people need to engage in lifelong learning and put what they learn into practice throughout their lives; stresses that digital competences need to be part of the basic curriculum;
Amendment 279 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls on the Commission to start monitoring job trends more closely, with a special focus on the creation and loss of jobs in the different fields/areas of qualification in order to know in which fields jobs are being created and those in which jobs are being destroyed as a result of the increased use of robotsand on their effects on lost revenue in social security systems, considering that the development of robotics is often co-financed from EU funds, in order to know in which fields jobs are being created and those in which jobs are being destroyed as a result of the increased use of robots; taking into account, in particular, that the probability of employees with low qualifications becoming unemployed is higher and their retraining may encounter difficulties owing to failures in their educational grounding;
Amendment 291 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Bearing in mind the effects that the development and deployment of robotics and AI might have on employment and, consequently, on the viability of the social security systems of the Member States, an answer must be found to the question of how it is possible to create new and sustainable social security systems; furthermore, consideration should be given to the possible need to introduce corporate reporting requirements on the extent and proportion of the contribution of robotics and AI to the economic results of a company for the purpose of taxation and social security contributions; takes the view that in the light of the possible effects on the labour market of robotics and AI the introduction of a general basic income must be seriously considered, and invites all Member States to do so, in a situation when no human work is needed in traditional structures (working and lifestyle routine). what further conditions are required in addition to financial security to ensure that humans remain healthy (mental and physical well- being), happy and active must be seriously assessed;
Amendment 319 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Considers that, in principle, once the ultimately responsible parties have been identified, their liability would be proportionate to the actual level of instructions given to the robot and of its autonomy, so that the greater a robot's learning capability or autonomy is, the lower other parties' responsibility should be, and the longer a robot's 'education' has lasted, the greater the responsibility of its 'teacher' should be; notes, in particular, that skills resulting from '‘education'’ given to a robot should be not confused with skills depending strictly on its self-learning abilities when seeking to identify the person to whom the robot'’s harmful behaviour is actually due; highlights, at the same time, that in the case of robots capable of independent learning, it is difficult to draw a line up to which the robot is no longer executing pre- programmed instructions, but is making independent decisions; therefore, this issue must be examined further as developments take place;
Amendment 329 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Points out that a possible solution to the complexity of allocating responsibility for damage caused by increasingly autonomous robots could be an obligatory insurance scheme, as is already the case, for instance, with cars; notes, nevertheless, that unlike the insurance system for road traffic, where the insurance covers human acts and failures, an insurance system for robotics could be based on the obligation of the producer to take out an insurance for the autonomous robots it produces;
Amendment 355 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 – point aa (new)
Paragraph 31 – point aa (new)
aa) robots manufactured outside the European Union and imported into its territory must also be covered by mandatory insurance;
Amendment 358 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 a (new)
Paragraph 32 a (new)
32a. Stresses that no deviation from the principles set out in human rights conventions must be allowed;
Amendment 364 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Considers that the requested proposal will not have any financial implications on the new European agency to be set up;