How AI Systems Challenge the Conditions of Moral Agency?

The article explores the effects increasing automation has on our conceptions of human agency. We conceptualize the central features of human agency as ableness, intentionality, and rationality and define responsibility as a central feature of moral agency. We discuss suggestions in favor of holding AI systems moral agents for their functions but join those who refute this view. We consider the possibility of assigning moral agency to automated AI systems in settings of machine-human cooperation but come to the conclusion that AI systems are not genuine participants in joint action and cannot be held morally responsible. Philosophical issues notwithstanding, the functions of AI systems change human agency as they affect our goal setting and pursuing by influencing our conceptions of the attainable. Recommendation algorithms on news sites, social media platforms, and in search engines modify our possibilities to receive accurate and comprehensive information, hence influencing our decision making. Sophisticated AI systems replace human workforce even in such demanding fields as medical surgery, language translation, visual arts, and composing music. Being second to a machine in an increasing number of fields of expertise will affect how human beings regard their own abilities. We need a deeper understanding of how technological progress takes place and how it is intertwined with economic and political realities. Moral responsibility remains a human characteristic. It is our duty to develop AI to serve morally good ends and purposes. Protecting and strengthening the conditions of human agency in any AI environment is part of this task.Peer reviewe

Regulatory barriers to equity in a health system in transition : a qualitative study in Bulgaria

Background: Health reforms in Bulgaria have introduced major changes to the financing, delivery and regulation of health care. As in many other countries of Central and Eastern Europe, these included introducing general practice, establishing a health insurance system, reorganizing hospital services, and setting up new payment mechanisms for providers, including patient co-payments. Our study explored perceptions of regulatory barriers to equity in Bulgarian child health services. Methods: 50 qualitative in-depth interviews with users, providers and policy-makers concerned with child health services in Bulgaria, conducted in two villages, one town of 70,000 inhabitants, and the capital Sofia. Results: The participants in our study reported a variety of regulatory barriers which undermined the principles of equity and, as far as the health insurance system is concerned, solidarity. These included non-participation in the compulsory health insurance system, informal payments, and charging user fees to exempted patients. The participants also reported seemingly unnecessary treatments in the growing private sector. These regulatory failures were associated with the fast pace of reforms, lack of consultation, inadequate public financing of the health system, a perceived “commercialization” of medicine, and weak enforcement of legislation. A recurrent theme from the interviews was the need for better information about patient rights and services covered by the health insurance system. Conclusions: Regulatory barriers to equity and compliance in daily practice deserve more attention from policymakers when embarking on health reforms. New financing sources and an increasing role of the private sector need to be accompanied by an appropriate and enforceable regulatory framework to control the behavior of health care providers and ensure equity in access to health services