|
人工智能法律客体承担侵权责任划分及赔偿问题研究
|
Abstract:
人工智能在公众场合广为人知,尤其在安全话题方面。自动驾驶、人工智能机器人、人工智能自动人脸识别等技术带来便捷,同时也引发关注。近年来,随着新能源汽车的普及,自动驾驶事故频发,引发了公众对人工智能安全问题的关注。在这些事故发生后,受害者往往难以获得合理解决方案。企业常推卸责任,声称人工智能做出了最佳环境判断,产品设计与损害无关,从而侵害消费者权益。于是,一个关键问题是:事故发生时,人工智能究竟是主体还是客体?解答这个问题需关注人工智能技术本质。作为一种模拟人类智能的技术,人工智能具有自主性、灵活性和复杂性特点。在特定场景下,它可能成为事故发生的主体。
Artificial intelligence is widely known in the public arena, especially when it comes to safety topics. Technologies such as autonomous driving, AI robots, and AI automatic face recognition bring convenience and also raise concerns. In recent years, with the popularity of new energy vehicles, autonomous driving accidents have occurred frequently, raising public concern about AI safety. After these accidents, it is often difficult for victims to obtain reasonable solutions. Companies often shirk their responsibilities, claiming that the AI made the best environmental judgment and that the product design had nothing to do with the damage, thus infringing on consumer rights. Thus, a key question is: was the AI the subject or the object at the time of the accident? Answering this question requires focusing on the nature of AI technology. As a technology that simulates human intelligence, AI is characterised by autonomy, flexibility and complexity. In specific scenarios, it may become the subject of an accident.
[1] | 刘洪华. 人工智能法律主体资格的否定及其法律规制构想[J]. 北方法学, 2019, 13(4): 56-66. |
[2] | 黎四奇. 对人工智能非法律主体地位的解析[J]. 政法论丛, 2023(5): 117-127. |
[3] | 袁曾. 人工智能有限法律人格审视[J]. 东方法学, 2017(5): 50-57. |
[4] | 杨志航. 人工智能法律主体资格之否定[J]. 财经法学, 2022(4): 83-98. |
[5] | 刘洪华. 人工智能法律主体资格的否定及其法律规制构想[J]. 北方法学, 2019, 13(4): 56-66. |
[6] | 刘仁文, 曹波. 人工智能体的刑事风险及其归责[J]. 江西社会科学, 2021, 41(8): 143-155 256 2. |
[7] | 张学义, 王晓雪. “伦理旋钮”: 破解无人驾驶算法困境的密钥? [J]. 中国人民大学学报, 2023, 37(2): 73-82. |
[8] | 郭旨龙. 中国刑法何以预防人工智能犯罪[J]. 当代法学, 2020, 34(2): 44-55. |
[9] | 焦孟頔. 半自动驾驶车辆交通事故的刑事责任[J]. 法学, 2022, 490(9): 90-105. |
[10] | 李怀胜. 滥用个人生物识别信息的刑事制裁思路——以人工智能“深度伪造”为例[J]. 政法论坛, 2020, 38(4): 144-154. |