graduate student
Nizhniy Novgorod, Nizhny Novgorod, Russian Federation
UDK 34.03 Действие права. Права и преимущества, создаваемые или сохраняемые правовыми актами. Последствия, взаимоотношения и обязательства, порождаемые правовыми актами, для сторон, третьих лиц и общества. Уклонение от права. Нарушение права. Ответственность. Возмещение ущерба
Abstract: Introduction. The current processes of digitalization, the development and implementation of artificial intelligence have an impact on many spheres of public life. Law is no exception. The danger emanating from artificial intelligence, associated with technical failures, errors, machine learning defects, causes a high probability of harm to legally protected public relations. In this regard, the issues of legal liability are becoming acute. The purpose of the research is to study the issue of determining the subjects of legal liability for harm caused by artificial intelligence, to analyze ways to solve it. Research methods. The author used the dialectical method of cognition, a set of general scientific methods of cognition (analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction), as well as a number of special methods of cognition (formal legal, comparative legal, systemic, functional). Results. As a result of the research, the author comes to the conclusion that today artificial intelligence cannot act as an independent subject of legal liability due to the fact that it is a technology, the implementation and its use needs legal regulation. Artificial intelligence is considered as an object of legal regulation. Only individuals and legal entities that ensure its functioning can be brought to legal liability for the damage caused by artificial intelligence. The idea of endowing artificial intelligence with legal personality, which is popular in science today, leads away from real issues that need to be solved to ensure its development and large-scale use. The author suggests focusing on those forms of artificial intelligence that surround us at the moment, and considering theoretical and practical issues as applied to them. Not only robotic devices can act as such forms, but also various programs (software) that do not have a cyber-physical shell.
legal liability, harm, artificial intelligence, subjects of legal liability, robot agent, electronic person
1. Kartskhiya A. A. Tsifrovaya transformatsiya prava // Monitoring pravoprimeneniya. - 2019. - № 1 (30). - S. 25-29.
2. Gadzhiyev G. A., Voynikas Ye. A. Yavlyayetsya li robot-agent litsom? (poisk pravovykh form dlya regulirovaniya tsifrovoy ekonomiki) // Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki. - 2018. - № 1 (253). - S. 24-48. doi:https://doi.org/10.17323/2072-8166.2018.4.24.48.
3. Uzhov F. V. Iskusstvennyy intellekt kak sub»yekt prava // Probely v rossiyskom zakonodatel’stve. - 2017. - № 3. - S. 357-360.
4. Sviridova Ye. A. Problema otvetstvennosti iskusstvennogo intellekta cherez prizmu kontseptsii grazhdansko-pravovoy otvetstvennosti Frantsii // Obrazovaniye i pravo. - 2000. - № 4. - S. 516-523. doihttps://doi.org/10.24411/2076-1503-2020-10483.
5. Levchenko A. I. Grazhdansko-pravovaya otvetstvennost’ za prichineniye vreda iskusstvennym intellektom // Ural’skiy zhurnal pravovykh issledovaniy. - 2022. - № 2 (19). - S. 58-62. doihttps://doi.org/10.34076/2658_512X_2022_2_58.
6. Demidova A. S. Problemy grazhdansko-pravovoy otvetstvennosti za vred, prichinennyy iskusstvennym intellektom // Nauchnyy al’manakh. - 2022. - № 1-2 (87). - S. 108-112.
7. Matantsev D. A. Perspektivy deliktnoy otvetstvennosti robotov-agentov // Agrarnoye i zemel’noye pravo. - 2021. - № 9 (201). - S. 170-174. doi:https://doi.org/10.47643/1815-1329_2021_9_170.
8. Tsvetkova Ye. S. Vidy istochnikov povyshennoy opasnosti v aspekte razvitiya novykh tekhnologiy // Voprosy rossiyskoy yustitsii. - 2019. - № 1. - S. 385-401.
9. Laptev V. A. Ponyatiye iskusstvennogo intellekta i yuridicheskaya otvetstvennost’ za yego rabotu // Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki. - 2019. - № 2. - S. 79-102. doi:https://doi.org/10.17323/2072-8166.2019.2.79.102.
10. Balalayeva Yu. S. K voprosu o prezumptsii opasnosti iskusstvennogo intellekta // Vestnik Nizhegorodskoy akademii MVD Rossii. - 2022. - № 2 (58). - S. 177-182. doi:https://doi.org/10.36511/2078-5356-2022-2-177-182.
11. Nikiforov A. S. Yuridicheskoye litso kak sub»yekt prestupleniya i ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti / 2-ye izd. - Moskva : Tsentr YurInfoR, 2003. - 204 c.
12. Perov V. A. Otvetstvennost’ yuridicheskikh lits za deystviya korruptsionnogo kharaktera i institut ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti yuridicheskikh lits // Rassledovaniye prestupleniy: problemy i puti ikh resheniya. - 2017. - № 4 (18). - S. 65-68.
13. Naumov A. V. Ugolovnaya otvetstvennost’ yuridicheskikh lits // Lex Russica. - 2015. - № 7. - S. 57-63.
14. Fedorov A. V. Ugolovnaya otvetstvennost’ yuridicheskikh lits v Rossiyskoy Federatsii: ot teorii k izmeneniyu zakonodatel’stva // Rassledovaniye prestupleniy: problemy i puti ikh resheniya. - 2015. - № 1 (7). - S. 12-20.
15. Babushkin A. A., Maslov A. A., Ovchinskiy V. S. O nekotorykh nauchnykh problemakh ispol’zovaniya iskusstvennogo intellekta v operativno-rozysknoy deyatel’nosti / Operativno-rozysknaya deyatel’nost’ v tsifrovom mire: sbornik nauchnykh trudov / pod red. V. S. Ovchinskogo. - Moskva: Infra-M, 2021. - S. 108-150. - 630 s.
