“How do you know you are a robot? “

“Suofeiya ” reply: “You need not worry about our robot, how does your mankind know he is the mankind again? ” last year, artificial intelligence robot ” Suofeiya ” become global first place to be gifted the robot of legal citizen identity.

Current, tremendous progress promotes science and technology artificial intelligence is swift and violent development. Artificial intelligence bringsProductionLifestyle profundity changes, what challenge to bring to legal system? How should be active law system adjusted again and to how should be active law system adjusted again and answer?

Whether is artificial intelligence resultant hadIntellectual property?

“In twilight lamp shadow, I know her lovely soil, made my heart becomes prisoner of war… ” the create person of this paragraph of line is not traditional sense those who go up ” person ” , however artificial intelligenceProduct”Microsoft little ice ” . In May 2017, “Microsoft little ice ” creation peotry anthology ” sunshine broke glazing ” publish, regard the history as the first peotry anthology that creates completely by artificial intelligence, its publication brings a new issue — whether is artificial intelligence resultant hadIntellectual property?

In south Cao Xinming of director of research center of intellectual property of university of politics and law of finance and economics thinks, according to active law, intellectual property achievement is to point to ” the achievement that human creation comes out ” , artificial intelligence can not make the right principal part on intellectual property meaning. “But, if will ‘ artificial intelligence ‘ creationActivityKind study at science together ‘ computer ‘ , regard artificial intelligence resultant as the wisdom gain that creates through artificial intelligence namely, so artificial intelligence resultant is had really again ‘ intellectual property work ‘ certain property. “

“The key of the problem depends on be opposite ‘ artificial intelligence ‘ law is qualitative. ” Cao Xinming expresses, at present the academia basically has to this one problem ” tool ” and ” fictitious person ” two kinds of viewpoints. “Tool ” the creature that regards artificial intelligence as the person namely and right object; “Fictitious person ” it is law gives artificial intelligence set one share ” person ” attribute, gift the qualification of legal principal part that its can enjoy a few rights.

“Even if admits artificial intelligence resultant has intellectual property, its right is attributive also be a problem that solves urgently. ” Cao Xinming thinks, if regard artificial intelligence as ” tool ” , the right of artificial intelligence resultant but vest in designs developer, or droit person, or use person and many obligee are mutual. If regard artificial intelligence as ” fictitious person ” , can regard artificial intelligence product on civil code meaning ” propagate ceases ” , regard artificial intelligence as for instance ” hen ” , so artificial intelligence resultant is ” hen ” below ” egg ” , “Egg ” return naturally ” hen ” possessory have.

In addition, create artificial intelligence product, often can undertake through a few programs ” deepness study ” , may collect among them, store the intellectual property information that many other people already enjoyed, this makes the inroad of pair of other intellectual property possibly. Cao Xinming thinks, “Below the case that is suspected of making enroach on intellectual property in this kind, ought to assume responsibility by who after all, also be a new issue. “

The person that can artificial intelligence replace judicatory?

In recent years, the artificial intelligence application in judicatory domain gradually thorough: In December 2016, the name is ” farsighted judge ” Beijing court intelligence grinds sentence the line on the system, offer for the judge handle a case the essence such as standard and analysis of measurement of penalty follows news, push legislation with big data applicable the unity with juridical measure; In May 2017, countrywide head ” criminal case intelligence is auxiliary handle a case system ” be born in Shanghai, in to Shanghai data of the dossier of case of tens of thousands of criminal, writ undertakes ” deepness study ” hind, already had capacity of capture of abecedarian evidence information, desired result and logistic analysis…

“Use artificial intelligence, the judgment such as explanation of all precedent that the person that can help judicatory gets similar case and law, code, judicatory is regular, the job that reduces them thereby is lost tired, promote accurate and applicable law. ” researcher of institute of law of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences raises Zhen Feng to think, collect through data, arrange, analysis, integrated, the person that artificial intelligence is promoting judicatory lawfully, comprehensive, standard is collected and examine evidence, unite the respect such as justice of the judicatory measure, judicatory that help strength, be well worth doing really.

But, whether do this mean the person that artificial intelligence will replace judicatory, realize independent conclusion? Apparent not OK.

“Artificial intelligence just implements the auxiliary measure of judicatory justice, must not take the branch for the root, this is us from beginning to end should a of engrave basic principle. ” in Shanghai traffic university triumphant dean of original law courtyard Professor Ji Weidong looks, the deviation that if rely on artificial intelligence overly to build court decision, foundation automatically,law of execute of big data correct decides, what hard to avoid forms adjudgement principal part is multipleStructure, form programmer in fact, SoftwareMain body and the judicatory such as business of engineer, data processing person in all hold judicatory situation.

“In addition, if let artificial intelligence exceed category of auxiliary sex method, apply at trying a case in the round, that introduces judicatory likely wrong road. ” Ji Weidong thinks, in case fact labyrinthian, human relation is complex, impure the circumstance of ethics and emotional element, how to make judgement according to legal principle, common sense and favor adjudication of hand-in-hand travel appropriate, it is a kind of delicate art actually, need relies on rational integration analysis of the judge. “Although artificial intelligence embedded probability program, have deepness study capacity, also assure to make a case judge of just and reasonable, be convinced letting a person hard. “

Zhi Zhenfeng also thinks, with respect to current development state looks, artificial intelligence still does not have the likelihood of the person that replace judicatory, regard the law that involves affection and reason, standard and value as lawsuit especially, if give artificial intelligence, this goes up in law and ethics, get very hard supportive. “Should be on guard to be formed to artificial intelligence ‘ method is depended on ‘ , artificial intelligence develops more, jump over the professional ethics of the person that should emphasize administration of justice. ” Zhi Zhenfeng says.

How is liability of artificial intelligence tort maintained?

In November 2016, the 18th China International that holds in Shenzhen is new and high on technical achievement Fair, the name is ” small fat ” the robot malfunctions suddenly, below the circumstance that did not dictate, break a part bad to exhibit a stage by oneself, bring about one person to get hurt.

Of limits of artificial intelligence application gain ground increasingly, the tort liability that its cause is maintained and assume a problem, it is new to another when system of active tort law puts forward challenge.

“From active jural look, tort liability main body can be civil main body only, artificial intelligence itself still makes new tort liability principal part hard. Even if is such, the cognizance of liability of artificial intelligence tort also faces a lot of and real difficult problem. ” Cheng Xiao is taught to look in courtyard of Tsinghua university law, after tort happening, who is artificial intelligence is possessory, ought to be in charge of by who, in jural do not put in controversy it seems that. “However the specific action of artificial intelligence suffers programme controll, when producing tort, it is after all by possessory orSoftwareResearch and developmentPerson load duty, be worth deliberate. “

To it similar, drive when nobody when the car causes other to damage tort, be by drive everybody of person, motor vehicle is carried duty, still carry by developer of car manufacturer, automatic road-sense duty? Whether is law necessary to drive for nobody does the car draft special tort liability regulation? These problems deserve further research.

“In reality, of liability of artificial intelligence tort return duty principle, more involves dangerous liability or do not have fault responsibility possibly. ” Cheng Xiao thinks, for example nobody drive the car is sent kill, no matter fromProductLook on responsibility or responsibility of accident of motor vehicle traffic, OK and applicable without fault responsibility. But what future needs to consider is, of artificial intelligence technology apply, whether does its itself belong to high danger to work (like unmanned aircraft) , decided exercise of danger of whether applicable height is sent thereby feel responsibility.

“Current, the judgement of the important document such as the causal, fault in liability of artificial intelligence tort also becomes complex with each passing day. ” Cheng Xiao returns citing to say, a few APP of the exposure before this ” big data is killed ripe ” and “AlgorithmicDiscriminate against ” , as a result of code opaque, together withAlgorithmicThe ego of itself learns and get used to ability, make ” will algorithmic discrimination returns duty at developer ” become very difficult.

Look in Cheng Xiao, be aimed at the new issue that artificial intelligence brings, new challenge, the research respect in legal system against a rainy day, will win a winner to move for practice of the following judicatory. “Artificial intelligence has come, just be inProductionEach domains of the life distributing not all. We do not answer when future distributings when even, artificial intelligence blends in the square respect range that produces the life completely already, just want to have a standard from law. ” Cheng Xiao says.