The DOI matches its Crossref record.
New Laws of Robotics
Abstract
AI is poised to disrupt our work and our lives. We can harness these technologies rather than fall captive to them—but only through wise regulation. Too many CEOs tell a simple story about the future of work: if a machine can do what you do, your job will be automated. They envision everyone from doctors to soldiers rendered superfluous by ever-more-powerful AI. They offer stark alternatives: make robots or be replaced by them. Another story is possible. In virtually every walk of life, robotic systems can make labor more valuable, not less. Frank Pasquale tells the story of nurses, teachers, designers, and others who partner with technologists, rather than meekly serving as data sources for their computerized replacements. This cooperation reveals the kind of technological advance that could bring us all better health care, education, and more, while maintaining meaningful work. These partnerships also show how law and regulation can promote prosperity for all, rather than a zero-sum race of humans against machines. How far should AI be entrusted to assume tasks once performed by humans? What is gained and lost when it does? What is the optimal mix of robotic and human interaction? New Laws of Robotics makes the case that policymakers must not allow corporations or engineers to answer these questions alone. The kind of automation we get—and who it benefits—will depend on myriad small decisions about how to develop AI. Pasquale proposes ways to democratize that decision making, rather than centralize it in unaccountable firms. Sober yet optimistic, New Laws of Robotics offers an inspiring vision of technological progress, in which human capacities and expertise are the irreplaceable center of an inclusive economy.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The latter, that is, systems such as chatbots, seem to complement and sometimes even substitute HCP patient consultations (p. 55).”
From Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care (2022) · cites this paper as Pasquale 2020
In the citing paper
“However, machines do not have the human capabilities of prudence and practical wisdom or the flexible, interpretive capacity to correct mistakes and wrong decisions.”
From Chatbot breakthrough in the 2020s? An ethical reflection on the trend of automated consultations in health care (2022) · cites this paper as Pasquale 2020, p. 57
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–101 of 101
DesAutels, L. (2026) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-026-01406-7
Metadata
- Authors
- Pasquale, F.
- Corresponding author
- Pasquale, Frank
- ORCID
- Pasquale, Frank
- Venue
- Harvard University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Harvard University Press
- Published
- 2020-10-26
- OpenAlex
- W3093932696
- Cited by
- 101
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 15.56
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Harvard University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Industrial relations › Legal and Labor Studies
- Keywords
- AI regulation, automation, future of work, human-robot collaboration, human-AI collaboration, meaningful work, inclusive economy, work values, artificial intelligence in healthcare, artificial intelligence in education, human expertise
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review