Camel, Weasel, Whale

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. Samir Chopra says:


    Yes, indeed, things are complicated when they come to artificial agents. They don’t fit easily into established legal categories, and they don’t fit easily into our conceptual ones. Thinking about them is going to be hard, and its going to require computer scientists, lawyers, philosophers and legislators to devise a full-blown theory to get things ‘right.’ Somewhere along the way, we as a community need to figure out what the “best predictive and explanatory position” is – figuring that out will require what our ends are, and how we want to get there. As the examples of contracting and privacy show, treating artificial agents as legal agents will advance economic efficiency in one domain and not in another. It might result in corporate-friendly outcomes in one domain, and in another it might not. These considerations will be in the mix when legislators, courts and law professors writing law review articles think about whether artificial agents should be legal agents or not.

    My book is a contribution to that debate; no more, no less.

  2. Ryan Calo says:

    It sounds to me as though we are on the same page. I certainly agree that the book represents a significant contribution to the fledgling literature here. Please don’t read my previous posts as indicating otherwise!