Can a machine hold a duty of care during a person’s transition, or only carry one held by someone accountable?
People in hard transitions, such as leaving a home, losing work or recovering from illness, are increasingly looked after partly by software. Dignity Needs records whether a machine can be the one holding that duty as an open disagreement.
Written for the hearth so this question has a whole card on each side to argue with. No visitor wrote them, so the two parts only a person can fill are empty: what happened to you, and who on the other side called the case against fair.
Only carry one
Where this card stands
Only carry one. A duty means someone answers when it is broken, and a machine can’t be held to account, so a named person or body has to stand behind it.
How sure, before and after the case against
The strongest case against it
Some AI systems will be more consistent and more available than any carer. Insisting on a human holder may mean people get less care.
What would change this card’s mind
If people cared for by AI systems with no human holder said they were looked after better than people with one.
It can hold the day-to-day part. A system that is always there and checked against clear rules can hold a duty of attention, with a person answerable for the system.
How sure, before and after the case against
The strongest case against it
Once a machine holds the daily duty, the answerable person becomes a name on a form who never meets the people involved.
What would change this card’s mind
If the answerable people in such arrangements couldn’t say what had happened to the people in their care.
“Argue with this card” opens the card on the front page with this card’s position as the case against you. You write where you stand and what would change your mind.