人工智能侵权：产品责任制度介入的权宜性及立法改造

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (11)

Download: PDF (496 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Artificial intelligence infringement challenges the current tort liability law, but artificial intelligence cannot subvert the existing legal system. Before achieving independent civil subject status, artificial intelligence is only a product with special functions such as analysis and judgment, and the infringement risk of artificial intelligence can be well controlled only through product liability regulation. Artificial intelligence, different from all previous products of human beings, can replace human beings in making independent decisions, and therefore it is doomed to face a moral dilemma. As the internal reasoning process of artificial intelligence products cannot be repeated, it is difficult to prove their algorithm defects. The independence of artificial intelligence system setting determines that other subjects cannot affect its design process. Therefore, it is necessary to reform the product liability system to regulate the infringement of artificial intelligence, introduce ethics to the product quality standard, invert the burden of proof for the design defects of artificial intelligence products, and add the designer as an independent subject of product liability. In view of the intelligent development of artificial intelligence, it is an expediency to regulate artificial intelligence infringement with product liability. In the future, legislation related to artificial intelligence should not only control risks, relieve losses, and protect the enthusiasm of artificial intelligence technology innovation, but also prepare for the future development of artificial intelligence with self-management ability as an independent legal subject and take its own responsibility.

Key words： artificial intelligence infringement product liability legislative reform regulation approach

Received: 08 April 2020

PACS:

D931

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	ZHANG An-yi

Cite this article:

ZHANG An-yi. Artificial Intelligence Infringement: the Expediency of Product Liability System and Legislative Reform[J]. , 2020, 37(4): 112-119.

URL:

https://xb.szu.edu.cn/EN/ OR https://xb.szu.edu.cn/EN/Y2020/V37/I4/112

[1] 司晓,曹建峰.论人工智能的民事责任:以自动驾驶汽车和智能机器人为切入点[J].法律科学(西北政法大学学报),2017,(5):166-173.
[2] 唐超. 论高度危险责任的构成——《侵权责任法》第69条的理解与适用[J].北方法学,2017,(4):81-95.
[3] 张建文. 格里申法案的贡献与局限——俄罗斯首部机器人法草案述评[J].华东政法大学学报,2018,(2):32-41.
[4] 吴汉东,张平,张晓津.人工智能对知识产权法律保护的挑战[J].中国法律评论,2018,(2):1-24.
[5] Davies C.R.An Evolutionary Step in Intellectual Property Rights-Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property[J].Computer Law & Security Review,2011,27(6):601-619.
[6] 袁曾. 人工智能有限法律人格审视[J].东方法学,2017,(5):50-57.
[7] 张志坚. 论人工智能的电子法人地位[J].现代法学,2019,(5):75-88.
[8] 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.
[9] 刘洪华. 论人工智能的法律地位[J].政治与法律,2019,(1):11-21.
[10] 魏振瀛. 民法学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2013.715.
[11] 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,(4):56-66.
[12] Tom Michael Gasser.Legal Issues of Driver Assistance Systems and Autonomous Driving[A].Azim Eskandarian ( Ed).Handbook of Intelligent Vehicles[M].London:Spring-er,2012.1519-1535.
[13] Jeffery K.Gurney. Crashing into the Unknown: An Examination of Crash -Optimization Algorithms through the Two Lanes of Ethics and Law[J].Albany Law Revie-w,2015,(1):183-267.
[14] 郭爽.微软聊天机器人被教坏变身满嘴脏话“不良少女”[EB/OL].http://it.people.com.cn/n1/2016/0404/c1009-28248123.html,2020-1-4.
[15] 黄志澄.如何看待霍金对人工智能的警告[N].中国青年报,2017-06-05(002).
[16] Susanne Beck.The Problem of Ascribing Legal Responsibility in the Case of Robotics[J].AI & Society,2016,31:473-481
[17] 李润生,史飚.人工智能视野下医疗损害责任规则的适用和嬗变[J].深圳大学学报(人文社会科学版),2019,(6):91-99.
[18] (法)吕克·费希.超人类革命[M]. 周行译.长沙:湖南科学技术出版社, 2017.153.
[19] 林德宏. 科技哲学十五讲[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2004.280.