创造性机器的责任制度。欧洲人的视角。

Irina Buzu
{"title":"创造性机器的责任制度。欧洲人的视角。","authors":"Irina Buzu","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3905324","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Artificial Intelligence liability has been the subject of a lively debate on the European regulators’ agenda for quite some time, part of a larger regulatory framework discussion related to the legal status of intelligent machines and AI regulation in general. As straightforward as the answer might seem to the question on whether AI systems should be granted legal status, and as such become holders of rights and duties, contradictory regulatory loopholes exist that make it possible for machines to be aligned on the same legal frontier as humans. Namely, the recent judicial precedent in the DABUS case, where an AI was granted inventorship, has shed light on the need to harmonise and unify AI regulatory provisions regarding the legals status of AI, while creating and maintaining an ecosystem that could balance the preservation of individual safety and fundamental rights without overly inhibiting innovation in AI. This article addresses the issue of machine liability in light of the current European regulatory framework on AI, while considering machine creativity as a medium for granting legal status to AI systems.","PeriodicalId":288317,"journal":{"name":"International Political Economy: Globalization eJournal","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Liability regimes for creative machines. A European perspective.\",\"authors\":\"Irina Buzu\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3905324\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Artificial Intelligence liability has been the subject of a lively debate on the European regulators’ agenda for quite some time, part of a larger regulatory framework discussion related to the legal status of intelligent machines and AI regulation in general. As straightforward as the answer might seem to the question on whether AI systems should be granted legal status, and as such become holders of rights and duties, contradictory regulatory loopholes exist that make it possible for machines to be aligned on the same legal frontier as humans. Namely, the recent judicial precedent in the DABUS case, where an AI was granted inventorship, has shed light on the need to harmonise and unify AI regulatory provisions regarding the legals status of AI, while creating and maintaining an ecosystem that could balance the preservation of individual safety and fundamental rights without overly inhibiting innovation in AI. This article addresses the issue of machine liability in light of the current European regulatory framework on AI, while considering machine creativity as a medium for granting legal status to AI systems.\",\"PeriodicalId\":288317,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Political Economy: Globalization eJournal\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Political Economy: Globalization eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3905324\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Political Economy: Globalization eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3905324","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

相当长一段时间以来,人工智能责任一直是欧洲监管机构议程上激烈辩论的主题,这是与智能机器和人工智能监管的法律地位相关的更大监管框架讨论的一部分。人工智能系统是否应该被赋予法律地位,并因此成为权利和义务的持有者,这个问题的答案似乎很简单,但存在相互矛盾的监管漏洞,这使得机器有可能与人类站在同一法律前沿。也就是说,最近在DABUS案中,人工智能被授予发明权的司法先例,揭示了协调和统一人工智能法律地位的人工智能监管规定的必要性,同时创建和维护一个生态系统,既能平衡保护个人安全和基本权利,又不会过度抑制人工智能的创新。本文根据目前欧洲对人工智能的监管框架解决了机器责任问题,同时将机器创造力视为赋予人工智能系统法律地位的媒介。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Liability regimes for creative machines. A European perspective.
Artificial Intelligence liability has been the subject of a lively debate on the European regulators’ agenda for quite some time, part of a larger regulatory framework discussion related to the legal status of intelligent machines and AI regulation in general. As straightforward as the answer might seem to the question on whether AI systems should be granted legal status, and as such become holders of rights and duties, contradictory regulatory loopholes exist that make it possible for machines to be aligned on the same legal frontier as humans. Namely, the recent judicial precedent in the DABUS case, where an AI was granted inventorship, has shed light on the need to harmonise and unify AI regulatory provisions regarding the legals status of AI, while creating and maintaining an ecosystem that could balance the preservation of individual safety and fundamental rights without overly inhibiting innovation in AI. This article addresses the issue of machine liability in light of the current European regulatory framework on AI, while considering machine creativity as a medium for granting legal status to AI systems.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信