Research On The Imposition Of Responsibility For Negligent Crimes Involving Artificial Intelligence

While AI is increasingly penetrating various fields of society to create more convenient conditions,it has also spawned various new types of criminal activities,especially in the field of negligent crime.Due to the contribution of AI’s autonomy to criminal results,neutral intelligence technology implies risks to personal and property security,resulting in the inability to reasonably determine the attribution of criminal responsibility for negligent offenders in accordance with traditional criminal law,creating practical and theoretical difficulties.Specifically,emerging features such as deep learning,autonomous control,and open group intelligence in artificial intelligence hinder natural person actors from anticipating the consequences of subsequent intelligent activities that occur outside of the initial programming process.Improper fault attribution models that focus on anticipating the possibility increase the risk of criminal liability for technical personnel or users such as researchers.Based on this,scholars of the new negligence theory propose the objective and subjective duty of care for negligent crimes in the field of artificial intelligence.Currently,there are no unified research and development standards and regulatory regulations in the field of artificial intelligence,and factors such as differences in standards in different fields,and the inability to refine specific obligations of care,make it difficult to delineate objective obligations of care in the field of artificial intelligence related negligent crimes.The subjective duty of care is related to the actor’s ability to foresee.Based on the individual’s subjective ability,it is necessary to at least answer the question of whether there is a possibility of avoiding the consequences of the legal interest infringement caused by artificial intelligence.The emerging characteristics of deep learning in artificial intelligence led to the existence of a data black box within the range of its autonomous control processes.The autonomous activities of artificial intelligence create intricate causal relationships,while blurring the empirical direction of causal relationships.Judging violations of subjective attention obligations through individual capabilities exceeds the ability of ordinary people.The traditional theory of negligent crime regards whether the perpetrator has the possibility of foreseeing the harmful outcome and the magnitude of the possibility of foreseeing as the main judgment factors for determining whether a crime is established and whether to pursue responsibility.However,the possibility of foreseeing cannot be separated from the existence of human subjective factors,which belongs to the scope of subjective knowledge.It can be seen that the negligent crime cannot be separated from the nest of subjective responsibility.In the face of the new pattern of legal interest infringement brought about by the emerging field of artificial intelligence,the criminal law academic community has conducted extensive exploration with artificial intelligence criminal liability as the center,with the purpose of making up for the plight of liability fixation for errors involving artificial intelligence,and has constructed different liability fixation paths at different levels and categories,which can be specifically divided into thinking paths in the direction of legislative theory and improving paths in the direction of interpretive theory.From the perspective of legislation,there are two approaches:building an intelligent criminal law system and adding related AI related crimes.The builders of the intelligent criminal law system advocate abandoning the idea of natural human-centered responsibility subject,and by recognizing the criminal subject status of AI and reconstructing the current penalty system to expand the scope of regulation to compensate for liability loopholes.The subversion of the criminal law system not only fails to achieve the effectiveness of AI related crimes,At the same time,the complexity of the system will also make the traditional path of crime governance suffer a heavy blow;Proponents of adding relevant crimes involving artificial intelligence believe that adding individual crimes through partial adjustments to the criminal code can address the technical risks brought by the field of artificial intelligence,which is suspected of symbolic legislation to meet the public’s response to new types of crimes;Explanators advocate that,under the premise of respecting the current criminal law legislation and mainstream theories,within the basic logic of regulating crime in the current criminal law,the method of reasonable explanation at the theoretical level should be used to eliminate or alleviate the liability fixation dilemma,which not only conforms to the practical risks faced by artificial intelligence,but also conforms to the principle of modesty in criminal law.This article supports the view.The current theory of negligent crime in China takes the willpower factor of the perpetrator’s prediction of the harmful consequences as the core factor in determining whether a crime is established and whether to pursue responsibility,reflecting a strong subjective imputation pattern.Due to the impact of artificial intelligence technology on criminal behavior on the traditional imputation path of negligent offenders,it is necessary to jump away from and transform the traditional subjective imputation structural model of negligent offenders,shake off the control of subjective will factors over the imputation model,and attempt to theoretically construct a transition path from willful imputation to normative imputation.Nowadays,with the increasing prevalence of risk,contemporary preventive criminal law has gradually formed a liability principle based on the theory of risk jurisdiction,which provides a new solution to the problem of artificial intelligence fault liability as the essence of regulating liability attribution.The primary task of constructing a new model is to clarify the risk jurisdiction scope of various relevant actors in artificial intelligence.The control right dilemma theory determines the risk control status by determining whether the accident occurred in violation of the duty of care,which is feasible due to the complexity of risk jurisdiction in the context of artificial intelligence.After defining the area of jurisdictional risk and dividing the scope of obligations,the road to transformation still requires further identification of whether an act creates an impermissible risk.The objective liability theory requires that the formal level standardize the attention obligation of the actor.Industry obligations based on industry regulations,standards,and ethics are more professional and suitable as a source of attention obligations in the field of artificial intelligence.Based on this,it is judged whether an act creates an impermissible risk.Formally,the actor violates the filling criteria,substantially reducing the attention ability of the actor as the standard.The violation of the objective duty of care by an act only confirms the condemnability of the subject of the act,and the determination of the ultimate attribution of responsibility still requires a determination of whether the result is achieved in the creation of an impermissible risk.The theory of obligation substitution provides a solution to the confirmation of the normative relationship between risk creation and risk realization.In the increasingly complex and diverse era of risk,Setting the degree of likelihood of outcome avoidance too high means that technology is more free,resulting in anarrowing of the scope of public safety.Conversely,setting the degree of likelihood of outcome avoidance too low means favoring the public’s perception of hindering technological progress,while at the same time,there is a suspicion of expanding the scope of punishment for negligent offenders.When replacing a breach of duty of care with a compliant behavior,as long as the likelihood of outcome avoidance is greater than 50%,That is,when the likelihood of avoiding the outcome is greater than the likelihood that the outcome will still occur,the act of violating the obligation becomes the driving force for promoting the development of things,and it can be concluded that the act of violating the objective duty of care by the actor realizes the risk that is not allowed by law,thereby confirming liability attribution.