This month, the European Parliament voted in favour of a resolution to create a new ethical-legal framework for robots. The Commission does not have to follow the parliament’s recommendations, but if it refuses it will have to explain why.欧洲议会(European Parliament)本月通过一项决议，其内容是创建针对机器人的新的伦理-法律框架。欧盟委员会不用遵循前者的建议，但如果拒绝接受，它必需说明原因。The basic idea is reasonable. Today, we spend increasing amounts of time in the infosphere. In this digital ocean, robots are the real natives: we scuba dive, they are like fish. Robots of all kinds will multiply and proliferate, making the infosphere even more their own element. Add artificial intelligence, smartphones, cloud computing, big data, machine learning and the internet of things, and it becomes obvious that there is no time to waste.基本理念是合理的。

当今，我们在信息空间花费的时间日益激增。在这个数字海洋里，机器人才是确实的本地人：我们戴着水肺潜水，而它们就像鱼一样。

各种各样的机器人将不会很快减少和交配，使信息空间在更大程度上沦为它们如鱼得水的环境。再行再加人工智能、智能手机、云计算、大数据、机器学习和物联网，似乎没时间可以浪费了。We are laying down foundations for the mature information societies of the near future, so we need new ethical frameworks to determine which forms of artificial agency we are happy to see flourishing in them. Against this background, the EU’s initiative provokes mixed feelings: excitement at the aspiration but disappointment at the implementation. There is too much fantasy and too little realism.我们正在为旋即的将来的成熟期信息社会奠下基础，因此我们必须新的伦理框架来确认：我们乐意看见什么形式的人工能动性在那样的社会盛开？在这样的背景下，欧盟的倡议让人喜忧参半：既有对志向的兴奋，也有对实行的沮丧。

幻想过于多，现实过于较少。Consider two key issues: jobs and responsibilities. Robots replace human workers. Retraining unemployed people was never easy, but it is more challenging now that technological disruption is spreading so rapidly, widely and unpredictably. There will be many new forms of employment in other corners of the infosphere — think of how many people have opened virtual shops on eBay. But new and different skills will be needed. More education and a universal basic income may mitigate the impact of robotics on the labour market.看看两个关键问题：工作岗位和责任。机器人代替人类劳动者。

新的培训失业人员根本都不是一件更容易的事情，而随着科技导致的妨碍如此很快蔓延到、影响普遍和不能预测，这显得极具挑战性。在信息空间的其他角落将经常出现许多新的低收入形式——看看有多少人在eBay上开了虚拟世界商店。

但人们将必须新的、有所不同的技能。减少教育机会和实施全民基本收益也许可以减轻机器人对劳动市场的影响。Society will need more resources. Unfortunately, robots do not pay taxes. And more profitable companies are unlikely to pay enough extra taxes to compensate for the loss of revenues. So robots cause a higher demand for taxpayers’ money and a lower supply of it.社会将必须更加多资源。

失望的是，机器人不交税。而较为盈利的企业不太可能交纳充足多的额外税款来补偿财政收入的损失。也就是说，机器人带给对纳税人资金的更高市场需求，却也带给较少的税收收入。

How can one get out of this tailspin? The report correctly identifies the problem. But its original recommendation of a robo tax on companies that employ robots — a proposal that did not survive into the final text approved the parliament — may not be feasible, for what counts as a robot? It may also work as a disincentive to innovation.如何挣脱这种困境？该报告正确地界定了这个难题。但其原本明确提出的方案（对用于机器人的企业征税“机器人税”；该议案没能转入议会通过的最后文本）也许并不不切实际，因为什么才算机器人呢？这还有可能妨碍创意。

And where should we allocate legal responsibilities? If my robot breaks my neighbour’s window, who is responsible? The company who produced it, the shop who sold it, I the owner, or the robot itself — if it has become completely autonomous through a learning process, capable of intelligent action? The report suggests a “specific legal status” for more advanced robots, as “electronic persons responsible for making good any damage they may cause”, which has been approved in the final document. So companies may not pay a robo tax and may not even be liable for some kinds of robots. This is a mistake.此外，我们如何分配法律责任？如果我的机器人超越了我一家人的窗户，谁该为此负责管理？生产这台机器人的公司、销售这台机器人的商店、我这个所有者、还是机器人自己——如果它通过自学过程，显得几乎自律，需要作出智能行动？报告建议，对较为先进设备的机器人彰显一种“类似的法律地位”，将它们视作“有责任赔偿金它们有可能引发的任何损失的电子人”，这一点在最后的文件获得接纳。这样一来，企业也许需要交纳机器人税，甚至有可能需要对某些机器人分担赔偿金责任。这是一个错误。

There is no need to adopt science fiction solutions to solve practical problems of legal liability. Jurisprudence already provides a solution.没有适当用科幻小说里的解决方案来解决问题法律责任归属于的实际问题。法理学早已获取了一个解决方案。If robots become as good as human agents — think of the droids in Star Wars — we can adapt rules as old as Roman law, in which the owner of enslaved persons is responsible for any damage. As the Romans knew, attributing some kind of legal personality to robots (or slaves) would relieve those who should control them of their responsibilities. And how would rights be attributed? Do robots have the right to own data? Should they be “liberated”?如果机器人显得像人类行为人一样杰出——看看《星球大战》(Star Wars)里的机器人——那么我们可以糅合罗马法这样的古老规则。

罗马法规定奴隶的主人要对奴隶导致的任何损毁负责管理。正如罗马人看见的，将某种法律人格彰显机器人（或者奴隶）不会让那些应当掌控它们（他们）的人逃脱责任。而且，权利又该如何归属于？机器人有权利享有数据吗？它们应当被“和平”吗？It may be fun to speculate about such questions, but it is also distracting and irresponsible, given the pressing issues at hand. We are stuck in the wrong conceptual framework. The debate is not about robots but about us, and the kind of infosphere we want to create. We need less science fiction and more philosophy.环绕这些问题展开猜测或许很有意思，但考虑到当前面对的急迫问题，这也是让人迟疑和不负责任的。

我们陷于了错误的概念框架。这场辩论与机器人牵涉到，而与我们有关，与我们想创立什么样的信息空间有关。我们必须较少一些科幻小说，多一些哲学。