Think lawsuits involving humans are tricky? Try taking an intelligent robot to court. While autonomous robots with humanlike, all-encompassing capabilities are still decades away, European lawmakers, legal experts and manufacturers are already locked in a high-stakes debate about their legal status: whether it's these machines or human beings who should bear ultimate responsibility for their actions. The battle goes back to a paragraph of text, buried deep in a European Parliament report from early 2017, which suggests that self-learning robots could be granted "electronic personalities." Such a status could allow robots to be insured individually and be held liable for damages if they go rogue and start hurting people or damaging property.

The first Stakeholder Summit on Artificial Intelligence, organised by the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) and the European Commission, stressed that the EU must ensure that artificial intelligence is safe, unbiased and in line with European values. The event, which aimed to discuss the next steps to advance the EU strategy on artificial intelligence, took place on 18 June in Brussels. The key EU policy-makers on artificial intelligence and European stakeholders who gathered for the first stakeholder summit agreed that artificial intelligence held great promise in terms of addressing societal issues, but also raised a number of challenges with regard to privacy, security, labour, education and ethics. "Artificial intelligence is a technology which does not have to overcome and overwhelm us," said Catelijne Muller, President of the EESC Thematic Study Group on Artificial Intelligence, adding that humans should stay in command of artificial intelligence and be able to determine "if, when and how we want to use these technologies in our daily lives." Artificial intelligence is one of the main political priorities of the EESC's current presidency.

The advent of artificial intelligence and robotics creates new opportunities and risks, necessitating new forms of rule and regulation. Amongst the recommendations contained in Ms. Delvaux's report in this regard are the establishment of an EU agency for robotics and AI, an advisory code of conduct for robotics engineers and a new reporting structure to take account of robotics and AI for the purposes of taxation. Ms. Delvaux will discuss the EU's progress on these and other matters during her address. Mady Delvaux has been an MEP since 2014, and is a member of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats. She has held the positions of Minister of Education, Minister of Social Security, Transport and Communication and State Secretary for Health, Social Security and Youth in the government of Luxembourg.

Should robots be given legal status? This is the question that currently occupies the AI experts, and for a good reason, a paragraph well buried in a report of the European Parliament published in January 2017, suggests that it is necessary to assign "electronic personalities" to certain robots. "The creation, over time, of a legal personality specific to robots, so that at least the most sophisticated autonomous robots can be considered as electronic persons responsible for repairing any damage caused to a third party; it would be conceivable to consider as an electronic person any robot that makes autonomous decisions or that interacts independently with third parties." Translation, this recommendation suggests that autonomous robots should be held accountable, especially in the event that these machines damage the safety of people or damage property. The parties to this proposal, including builders, claim that this change is common sense.

MEPs have approved rules for keeping humans firmly in charge of Artificial Intelligence (AI). They include ways to establish liability in law, for example where driverless cars cause accidents. They have also called for ethical standards to be built in to AI algorithms and robots that work for humans, and standardisation across Member States to ensure a level playing field for technology companies. After a heated debate, the vote was passed on Thursday by a large majority, 369 to 123 with 85 abstentions. But clauses that would introduce a basic state allowance for people who lose their jobs to robotisation were defeated. A coalition of right-wing parties voted them out.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly being used as an unbiased judge, for matters ranging from insurance to economic efficiency. But can it ever truly be unbiased? When Remy Descartes first wrote the phrase cogito ergo sum –'I think therefore I am'– in the 1600s, he could not have been aware of the philosophical questioning that would erupt with the onset of artificial intelligence (AI) in the 20th and 21st century. Every Google search, every video suggested on YouTube and every Siri recommendation is built on machine learning algorithms designed to learn everything about your online habits, in a bid to offer targeted content that you might like. Even outside of consumer-level decisions, AI and algorithms are increasingly being used to root out hidden meanings in billions of lines of genetic code, in the hope of finding a cure to a disease or building machines that can talk for themselves.

The idea of a tax on robots was raised last May in a draft report to the European parliament prepared by MEP Mady Delvaux from the committee on legal affairs. Emphasising how robots could boost inequality, the report proposed that there might be a "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". The public reaction to Delvaux's proposal has been overwhelmingly negative, with the notable exception of Bill Gates, who endorsed it. But we should not dismiss the idea out of hand. In just the past year, we have seen the proliferation of devices such as Google Home and Amazon Echo Dot (Alexa), which replace some aspects of household help. Likewise, the Delphi and nuTonomy driverless taxi services in Singapore have started to replace taxi drivers.

NEW HAVEN – The idea of a tax on robots was raised last May in a draft report to the European Parliament prepared by MEP Mady Delvaux from the Committee on Legal Affairs. Emphasizing how robots could boost inequality, the report proposed that there might be a "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." The public reaction to Delvaux's proposal has been overwhelmingly negative, with the notable exception of Bill Gates, who endorsed it. But we should not dismiss the idea out of hand. In just the past year, we have seen the proliferation of devices such as Google Home and Amazon Echo Dot (Alexa), which replace some aspects of household help. Likewise, the Delphi and nuTonomy driverless taxi services in Singapore have started to replace taxi drivers.

Mady Delvaux wrote a report urging European politicians to enforce regulation around AI and robotics. European politicians have voted in favour of a controversial report calling for regulation on robots and artificial intelligence (AI). The vote, which took place in France on Thursday, was based on a report from the Legal Affairs Committee, which warned that there is a growing need for regulation to address increasingly autonomous robots and other forms of sophisticated AI. The report passed 396-to-123, with 85 abstentions. "MEP's (Members of the European Parliament) voted overwhelmingly in favour of the report," said a spokesperson for the European Parliament.

With the robotics industry rapidly growing, MEPs have warned that rules are needed to'guarantee a standard level of safety and security.' In a resolution voted today, MEPs are asking the EU Commission to enforce regulatory standards for robotics, and have stressed that the key issue lies with self-driving cars. They have suggested that a European agency for robotics and artificial intelligence should be set up, to supply public authorities with technical, ethical and regulatory expertise. They also asked for specific legal status for robots as'electronic persons' in the long run, in order to establish who is liable if they cause damage. MEPs have warned that robots need to be fitted with'kill switches' to prevent a Terminator-style uprising against humans If a robot unlawfully kills someone in the heat of battle, who is liable for the death?