全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

人工智能侵权的法律问题研究
Research on Legal Issues of Artificial Intelligence Infringement

DOI: 10.12677/OJLS.2024.123216, PP. 1501-1508

Keywords: 人工智能,产品责任,生产者,设计者
AI
, Product Liability, Producer, Designer

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

随着人工智能产品种类的增多、应用范围的扩大,各类人工智能侵权案件层出不穷,人工智能侵权归责问题亟待解决。人工智能的拟人性特征导致现阶段人工智能法律地位颇具争议,产生了肯定说、否定说和折中说三种学说,折中说破坏了现行民法的基本理念,而人工智能技术发展初期,贸然赋予人工智能主体地位不会产生实际效应,明确人工智能是权利义务的客体,才是技术发展和权利保护的要求;其次,适用产品责任解决人工智能侵权问题具有合理性,人工智能产品的生产者、设计者应当承担无过错责任;但产品责任无法合理分配人工智能产品使用人的责任以及特殊类型的侵权案件责任,对此笔者认为在现阶段人工智能的使用人应承担过错责任,但在无人驾驶等特殊领域使用人应承担无过错责任。在人工智能领域特殊类型侵权的归责问题,则要引入公平责任,以此来保护受害者的权益。
With the increase of the number of artificial intelligence products and the expansion of the scope of application, various artificial intelligence infringement cases have emerged one after another, and the problem of artificial intelligence infringement attribution needs to be solved urgently. The anthropomorphic characteristics of artificial intelligence have led to the controversial legal status of artificial intelligence at this stage, resulting in three theories of affirmation, negation and compromise theory. The compromise theory destroys the basic concepts of the current civil law. In the early stage of the development of artificial intelligence technology, rashly giving artificial intelligence the subject status will not produce practical effects, and it is clear that artificial Intelligence is the object of rights and obligations, and is the requirement of technology development and rights protection. Secondly, it is reasonable to apply product responsibility to solve the problem of artificial intelligence infringement, and the producers and designers of artificial intelligence products should bear no fault responsibility. However, product responsibility cannot reasonably allocate the responsibility of users of artificial intelligence products and For the liability of special types of infringement cases, the author believes that at this stage, the user of artificial intelligence should bear the responsibility for fault, but the user in special fields such as unmanned driving should bear the responsibility for no fault. For the attribution of special types of infringement in the field of artificial intelligence, fair liability should be introduced to protect the rights and interests of victims.

References

[1]  王秋蓉, 吴亚楠, 杜娟, 等. 推动新一代人工智能健康发展的新路径——“人工智能助力联合国可持续发展目标”溯源篇[J]. 可持续发展经济导刊, 2020(6): 15-19.
[2]  王群, 付丽娟. 人工智能侵权责任探析[J]. 齐齐哈尔大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2023(10): 107-110.
[3]  Davies, C.R. (2011) An Evolutionary Step in Intellectual Property Rights—Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property. Computer Law & Security Review, 27, 601-619.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2011.09.006
[4]  Beck, S. (2016) The Problem of Ascribing Legal Responsibility in the Case of Robotics. AI & Society, 31, 473-481.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-015-0624-5
[5]  胡裕岭. 欧盟率先提出人工智能立法动议[J]. 检察风云, 2016(18): 54-55.
[6]  张童. 人工智能产品致人损害民事责任研究[J]. 社会科学, 2018(4): 103-112.
[7]  杨立新. 用现行民法规则解决人工智能法律调整问题的尝试[J]. 中州学刊, 2018(7): 40-49.
[8]  汤敏. 民法前沿问题研究[M]. 北京: 中国政法大学出版社, 2018: 302.
[9]  彭中礼. 新兴技术推动法理论变革的因素考量——以人工智能产品侵权责任分配理论为例的反思[J]. 甘肃社会科学, 2022(4): 115-128.
[10]  吴芷靖. 论智能机器人索菲亚对传统法律主体的冲击[J]. 丽水学院学报, 2021(4): 42-47.
[11]  张安毅. 人工智能侵权: 产品责任制度介入的权宜性及立法改造[J]. 深圳大学学报: 人文社会科学版, 2020(4): 112-119.
[12]  钟晓雯. 人工智能侵权: 产品责任制度规制的窠臼与纾解[J]. 河南科技学院学报, 2022, 42(3): 57-64.
[13]  张伟, 杜军燕, 张涛. 归责原则的界定与我国侵权法的归责原则[J]. 北京邮电大学学报: 社会科学版, 2003(3): 43-46.
[14]  钱思雯. 弱人工智能时代的法律回应——构建以产品责任为核心的责任分配体系[J]. 中国科技论坛, 2019(9): 76-84.
[15]  杨立新. 人身权法论析[M]. 北京: 人民法院出版社, 2006: 862.
[16]  王新雷, 秦文豪. 涉人工智能案件的审判难点及应对思路——基于对220件司法裁判结果的实证研究[J]. 北京航空航天大学学报: 社会科学版, 2023(1): 1-13.

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133