Activities of Mady DELVAUX related to 2015/2103(INL)
Plenary speeches (2)
Civil Law Rules on Robotics (debate) FR
Civil Law Rules on Robotics (debate) FR
Reports (1)
REPORT with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics PDF (573 KB) DOC (118 KB)
Amendments (19)
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 3
Citation 3
— having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, the Committee on Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (A8-0000/2016),
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas in the short to medium term robotics and AI promise to bring benefits of efficiency and savings, not only in production and commerce, but also in areas such as transport, medical care, education and farming, while making it possible to avoid exposing humans to dangerous conditions, such as those faced when cleaning up toxically polluted sites; whereas in the longer term there is potential for virtually unbounded prosperity;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas over the past 200 years employment figures had persistently increased due to the technological development; whereas the development of robotics and AI may have the potential of job creation; 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 influence;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas ultimately there is a possibility that within the space of a few decadesin a long-term perspective AI could surpass human intellectual capacity in a manner which, if not prepared for, could pose a challenge to humanity's capacity to control its own creation and, consequently, perhaps also to its capacity to be in charge of its own destiny and to ensure the survival of the species;
Amendment 100 #
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 operator, the owner, the user, etc.); whereas this, in turn, makes the ordinary rules on liability insufficient and 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 116 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital U
Recital U
U. whereas under the current legal framework robots cannot be held liable per se for acts or omissions that cause damage to third parties; whereas the existing rules on liability cover cases where the cause of the robot’s act or omission can be traced back to a specific human agent such as the manufacturer, the operator, the owner or the user and where that agent could have foreseen and avoided the robot’s harmful behaviour; whereas, in addition, manufacturers, operators, owners or users could be held strictly liable for acts or omissions of a robot if, for example, the robot were categorised as a dangerous object or if it fell within product liability rules;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Calls on the Commission to propose a common European definition of smart autonomous robots and their subcategories by taking into consideration the following characteristics of a smart robot: o acquires autonomy through sensors and/or by exchanging data with its environment (inter-connectivity) and trades and analyses data o is self-learning (optional criterion) o has a physical support o adapts its behaviours and actions to its environment o is not alive in the biological sense;
Amendment 181 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Highlights the principle of transparency, that it should always be possible to supply the rationale behind any decision taken with the aid of AI that can have a substantive impact on one or more person´s lives; considers that it must always be possible to reduce the AI system´s computations to humanly- comprehensible form;
Amendment 211 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9 a. Considers that the European Agency for robotics and artificial intelligence should also be the authority responsible for awarding a certified and controlled "transparency label" to suppliers in order to identify products and services that guarantee data transparency;
Amendment 252 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Points out that human contact is one of the fundamental aspects of human care; believes that replacing the human factor with robots could dehumanise caring practices, on the other hand, recognises that robots could support performing automated tasks of care and could facilitate the work of care assistants;
Amendment 265 #
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; asks for theunderlines the importance of establishment ofing 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 271 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Stresses the importance of a European framework for remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS)the use of drones to protect the safety, security and privacy of EU citizens, and calls on the Commission for a follow- up to the recommendations of the European Parliament resolution of 29 October 2015 on safe use of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS), known as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), in the field of civil aviation5 ; __________________ 5 Texts adopted, P8_TA(2015)0390. Texts adopted, P8_TA(2015)0390.
Amendment 303 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Asks the Commission to submit, on the basis of Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, a proposal for a legislative instrument on legal questions related to the development of robotics and artificial intelligence foreseeable in the next 10-15 years, following the detailed recommendations set out in the annex hereto; further calls on the Commission, once technological developments allow the possibility for robots whose degree of autonomy is higher than what is reasonably predictable at present to be developed, to propose an update of the relevant legislation in due time;
Amendment 312 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Considers that the future legislative instrument should provide for the application of strict liability as a rule, thus requiring only proof that damage has occurred andbe based on an in-depth evaluation by the Commission defining whether the establishment of a causal link between the harmful behaviour of the robot and the damage suffered by the injured partyrict liability or the risk management approach should be applied;
Amendment 314 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27a. Notes at the same time that strict liability requires only proof that damage has occurred and the establishment of a causal link between the harmful functioning of the robot and the damage suffered by the injured party;
Amendment 315 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 b (new)
Paragraph 27 b (new)
27b. Notes that the risk management approach does not focus on the person "who acted negligently" as individually liable but on the person who is able, under certain circumstances, to minimize risks and deal with negative impact;
Amendment 321 #
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 'educationtraining' 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;
Amendment 343 #
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 351 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 – point f
Paragraph 31 – point f
f) proposing an update of the relevant legislation once technological developments allow the possibility for robots whose degree of autonomy is higher than what is reasonably predictable at present to be developed; 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 applying electronic personality to cases where robots make smart autonomous decisions or otherwise interact with third parties independently;