AI, having the right

rabiakhatun

The lack of a clearly defined legal status for artificial intelligence (AI) may become an obstacle to its further development and use.

According to the definition given in the National Strategy for the Development of AI for the Period up to 2030, approved by the decree of the President of the Russian Federation, “artificial intelligence is a complex of technological solutions that allows simulating human cognitive functions (including self-learning and finding solutions without a predetermined algorithm) and obtaining results when performing specific tasks that are at least comparable to the results of human intellectual activity.”

It is difficult to draw a clear conclusion regarding the legal status from this definition. On the one hand, we are talking about a “complex of technological solutions” (object of law), and on the content writing service other – about “imitation of human cognitive functions” and “comparability with the results of human intellectual activity” (subject of law).

Currently, three models of the legal status of AI are widespread in science:



AI is an object of law, since it lacks an emotional-volitional component

In this case, there can be no talk of legal capacity. However, this thesis is highly debatable, given that there is a special legal capacity, like that of legal entities. For example, supporters of the electronic person model argue that AI should be given limited legal capacity by analogy with a legal entity.

Ultimately, it all depends on what legal status is chosen, or perhaps even specifically designed, to regulate AI. It is too early to talk about a specific set of rights and obligations applicable to artificial intelligence.

I'm sure that

the situation has now arisen where it is necessary to more clearly define the legal status of AI

ADVANTAGES AND RISKS

In legal practice, artificial intelligence is perceived as an object of law, and, therefore, has no legal personality. However, its identification with an object of law gives rise to a number of questions in almost all branches of law. Thus, the issue of legal liability for damage caused by a driverless car is already quite acute.

We can also recall the many discussions related to intellectual property in relation to AI. Who owns both the artificial intelligence itself and the results of its activity? It is obvious that

The issue of determining the legal status of artificial intelligence is extremely relevant

It seems to me that the question of the legal capacity of AI primarily affects the problem of legal liability for damage caused by its actions. If we perceive this technology as an object of law, the fault will always lie with the developer or owner, and therefore it is the person who will bear legal responsibility for the actions of AI.

At the same time, given that one of the distinguishing features of AI is its certain degree of autonomy, a number of ethical and legal difficulties arise regarding who should bear legal responsibility for the actions of AI.