The Granting Of Rights To Robots In The Form Of Assign-Ing Them The Status Of A Legal Entity In The Status Of An“Electronic Entity” Also Raises The Problem Of Differ-Entiating These Rights Among The Robots Themselves

Abstract

As a result of human activity and created to facili-tate its activities, a robot or an electronic / mechani-cal entity performs certain functions specified by itsdevelopers. Like any functioning mechanism, thisentity can fulfill or violate the duties assigned to him.The natural question is arise, who will be responsiblefor possible errors in the functioning of this robot?The choice for the answer is not big: it must eitherbe the electronic entity itself or it must be an artificialintelligence developer.This problem was actualized as a result of an increasein the autonomy of artificial intelligence, as well asan increase in the number of deaths as a result of“decision-making” by such intelligence. For exam-ple, a traffic accident happened in the United States.So, as a result of an incorrect assessment of the situ-ation by the Tesla self-drive vehicle, when a car col-lided with a truck and the driver died, who did nothave time to take control.In this regard, let us recall the words of the founderof the Tesla car, I. Mask, who said that neither roadaccidents, nor plane crashes, nor lack of drugs orpoor-quality food can compare in the level of dangerwith the development of artificial intelligence, andcalled for the introduction of a state control over theimplementation of appropriate technologies  .In the requirements for the design, development andproduction of this class of industrial robots, in partic-ular, it is stated that during the development (design)of a machine and (or) equipment, possible typesof danger must be identified at all stages of thelife cycle  . For example, at present in Rus-sia, the responsibility for the illegal consequences ofthe functioning of industrial robots is borne by theirowners, manufacturers or operators.