SYSTEMATIC DISCUSSION OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE’S PERSONALITY IN CRIMINAL LAW AND THE PUNISHABILITY FOR IMPROPER OMISSION BY THE GROUP ACTING AS THEIR GUARANTOR POSITION

The rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) in the twenty-first century not only makes our life more convenient but also brings some invisible concerns. Through the study of several typical AI applications, it is found that today's AI cannot realize its full functionality without its users. Therefore, users still bear most of the legal liability for damage to legally-protected interests caused by AI. However, despite the continuous development of AI, the ways of remedy for damages to legally-protected interests, that may occur as a result of the crime of omission, arising during the logical writing of program codes are rarely conclusive. In addition to distinguishing the main framework between AI, machine learning, and deep learning in criminal law, this research arguing, based on philosophical jurisprudence, concludes that although AI has yet to meet the personality characteristics in criminal law due to its lack of independence, AI scientists or legal persons representing it must hold the guarantor position in an improper omission. This will render the scientists and legal persons punishable and relief petitions possible, supplying a considerable legal basis for future formulation of legal norms on AI based on the principle of nulla poena sine lege (no crime without law, or principle of legality).

• Publication year

  2023

• Venue

  Russian Law Journal

• Publication date

  2023-04-07

• Fields of study

  Not labeled

• Identifiers
  DOI 10.52783/rlj.v11i6s.934
• External record

  Open on Semantic Scholar

• Source metadata

  Semantic Scholar

• No claims are published for this paper.

• No concepts are published for this paper.

• Artificial intelligence and smart vision for building and construction 4.0: Machine and deep learning methods and applications

  2022cited by this paper
• LaMDA: Language Models for Dialog Applications

  2022cited by this paper
• In Memoriam Pamela McCorduck

  2022cited by this paper
• Seeking Compatibility in Preventing Crime with Artificial Intelligence and Ensuring a Fair Trial

  2021cited by this paper
• The Problem of Bias in Psychological Assessment

  2021cited by this paper
• The Prospects for the Recognition of the International Legal Personality of Artificial Intelligence

  2021cited by this paper
• From Unmanned Systems to Autonomous Intelligent Systems

  2021cited by this paper
• Users' acceptance of private automated vehicles: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

  2021cited by this paper
• Professional Practice Guidelines for Personality Assessment

  2021cited by this paper
• Property ownership and the legal personhood of artificial intelligence

  2021cited by this paper
• What makes an AI device human-like? The role of interaction quality, empathy and perceived psychological anthropomorphic characteristics in the acceptance of artificial intelligence in the service industry

  2021cited by this paper
• LAMDA: Label Matching Deep Domain Adaptation

  2021cited by this paper
• MORALITY IN THE AGE OF ARTIFICIALLY INTELLIGENT ALGORITHMS

  2021cited by this paper
• The Criminal Liability of the Compliance Officer: An Approach Through Several Hard Cases

  2020cited by this paper
• RETRACTED ARTICLE: Criminal tendency detection from facial images and the gender bias effect

  2020cited by this paper
• Siri Fails the Turing Test: Computation, Biosemiosis, and Artificial Life

  2019cited by this paper
• AI Systems Under Criminal Law: a Legal Analysis and a Regulatory Perspective

  2019cited by this paper
• Trust Me, I’m a Chatbot: How Artificial Intelligence in Health Care Fails the Turing Test

  2019cited by this paper
• AlphaGo, Deep Learning, and the Future of the Human Microscopist.

  2017cited by this paper
• The wrong cure

  2012cited by this paper
• A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence, August 31, 1955

  2006cited by this paper
• Machines Who Think : A Personal Inquiry into the History and Prospects of Artificial Intelligence

  2004cited by this paper
• The Turing Test*

  2000cited by this paper
• Moore's law: past, present and future

  1997cited by this paper
• Who should own the definition of personality?

  1994cited by this paper
• The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights: International Protection versus National Restrictions.

  1994cited by this paper
• History of Artificial Intelligence

  1977cited by this paper
• On the future of personality measurement.

  1977cited by this paper
• Computing Machinery and Intelligence

  1950cited by this paper

• No citing papers are available for this paper.