Legal Responsibilities and Obligations of Generative AI Service Providers

Yun Myung Kim
{"title":"Legal Responsibilities and Obligations of Generative AI Service Providers","authors":"Yun Myung Kim","doi":"10.38133/cnulawreview.2024.44.1.55","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AI is efficient for humans, but as a black box, AI can't clearly explain its results. In this sense, AI is ambivalent. As an unknown technology, it is difficult to predict how it will evolve, so it is necessary to hold those who develop or provide AI services accountable and responsible. However, we should not regulate the technology, but rather the service or business model. The goal is to ensure that AI services are provided reliably and that the content is not problematic. Even if service providers monitor their services, it is difficult to do so perfectly. Therefore, the law imposes certain obligations on service providers and holds them responsible for their omissions. This is the principle of OSP liability stipulated in the Copyright Act and the Information and Communications Network Act. By entering a safe harbor, OSPs can be immunized in certain cases. The safe harbor regulation has been positive for the development of the internet. Generative AI is often criticized. It's time to consider whether it applies to AI service providers as well. According to the interpretation of the Copyright Act and the Information and Com- munication Network Act, a service provider that provides generative AI services is a service provider that provides a tool for content production. Users give instructions through prompts or utilize it as a tool to create content. To clarify, the user uses the service to create the result that the user intends or desires. The scope of liability for AI services varies depending on the legal nature of the provider. Reviewing the legal status of the AI service provider is important for the activation of AI services. AI is considered a tool, and the rights to its output should belong to the user. Logically, the user is also responsible for the creation of infringing works. Since the service is ultimately created by the user, it is difficult to hold the service provider responsible for the content of the product. However, service providers are subject to a certain duty of care in that they are the developer of the service and the provider of the generative AI service. It is desirable for the development of the AI industry to impose a duty of care that requires certain actions on the part of the service provider for defects in AI, such as the continuous creation of infringing works or the illusion of inaccurate content.","PeriodicalId":288398,"journal":{"name":"Institute for Legal Studies Chonnam National University","volume":"119 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Institute for Legal Studies Chonnam National University","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.38133/cnulawreview.2024.44.1.55","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

AI is efficient for humans, but as a black box, AI can't clearly explain its results. In this sense, AI is ambivalent. As an unknown technology, it is difficult to predict how it will evolve, so it is necessary to hold those who develop or provide AI services accountable and responsible. However, we should not regulate the technology, but rather the service or business model. The goal is to ensure that AI services are provided reliably and that the content is not problematic. Even if service providers monitor their services, it is difficult to do so perfectly. Therefore, the law imposes certain obligations on service providers and holds them responsible for their omissions. This is the principle of OSP liability stipulated in the Copyright Act and the Information and Communications Network Act. By entering a safe harbor, OSPs can be immunized in certain cases. The safe harbor regulation has been positive for the development of the internet. Generative AI is often criticized. It's time to consider whether it applies to AI service providers as well. According to the interpretation of the Copyright Act and the Information and Com- munication Network Act, a service provider that provides generative AI services is a service provider that provides a tool for content production. Users give instructions through prompts or utilize it as a tool to create content. To clarify, the user uses the service to create the result that the user intends or desires. The scope of liability for AI services varies depending on the legal nature of the provider. Reviewing the legal status of the AI service provider is important for the activation of AI services. AI is considered a tool, and the rights to its output should belong to the user. Logically, the user is also responsible for the creation of infringing works. Since the service is ultimately created by the user, it is difficult to hold the service provider responsible for the content of the product. However, service providers are subject to a certain duty of care in that they are the developer of the service and the provider of the generative AI service. It is desirable for the development of the AI industry to impose a duty of care that requires certain actions on the part of the service provider for defects in AI, such as the continuous creation of infringing works or the illusion of inaccurate content.
生成式人工智能服务提供商的法律责任和义务
人工智能对人类来说是高效的,但作为一个黑盒子,人工智能无法清晰地解释其结果。从这个意义上说,人工智能是矛盾的。作为一项未知的技术,我们很难预测它将如何发展,因此有必要让那些开发或提供人工智能服务的人承担责任和义务。不过,我们不应监管技术,而应监管服务或商业模式。我们的目标是确保人工智能服务的提供是可靠的,内容不会有问题。即使服务提供商对其服务进行监控,也很难做到尽善尽美。因此,法律规定了服务提供商的某些义务,并要求他们对自己的疏忽负责。这就是《版权法》和《信息通信网络法》规定的 OSP 责任原则。通过进入安全港,OSP 可以在某些情况下获得豁免。安全港规定对互联网的发展具有积极意义。生成式人工智能经常受到批评。是时候考虑它是否也适用于人工智能服务提供商了。根据《著作权法》和《信息通信网络法》的解释,提供生成式人工智能服务的服务商是提供内容生产工具的服务商。用户通过提示下达指令,或将其作为创造内容的工具。说白了,就是用户利用该服务创造出用户想要或希望的结果。人工智能服务的责任范围因提供商的法律性质而异。审查人工智能服务提供商的法律地位对于人工智能服务的激活非常重要。人工智能被视为一种工具,其产出的权利应属于用户。从逻辑上讲,用户也应对侵权作品的创作负责。由于服务最终是由用户创造的,因此很难要求服务提供商对产品内容负责。但是,服务提供商作为服务的开发者和人工智能生成服务的提供者,有一定的注意义务。为了人工智能产业的发展,最好规定一种注意义务,要求服务提供商对人工智能中的缺陷采取某些行动,如不断创造侵权作品或不准确内容的假象。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信