Artificial Intelligence Liability Research Articles

AI and Medical Negligence

This paper examines the legal and ethical implications of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical negligence in Ghana, focusing on the adequacy of existing legal frameworks in addressing the unique challenges posed by AI-assisted healthcare delivery. Using the IRAC approach, the paper identifies key issues such as the blurring of lines of responsibility, lack of transparency and interpretability of AI systems, and potential for bias. The analysis reveals that Ghana's current laws, including the Public Health Act, 2012 (Act 851) and the Health Professions Regulatory Bodies Act, 2013 (Act 857), may not adequately address AI-related medical negligence. The paper recommends establishing multi-stakeholder committees, developing interim guidelines, adapting existing standards of care, promoting transparency and accountability, and fostering ongoing education and public engagement. The findings and recommendations contribute to the global policy debate on AI liability in medical negligence, emphasizing the need for collaborative, adaptive, and comprehensive legal and regulatory frameworks that prioritize patient safety, rights, and trust.

AI and Medical Negligence

This paper examines the legal and ethical implications of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical negligence in Ghana, focusing on the adequacy of existing legal frameworks in addressing the unique challenges posed by AI-assisted healthcare delivery. Using the IRAC approach, the paper identifies key issues such as the blurring of lines of responsibility, lack of transparency and interpretability of AI systems, and potential for bias. The analysis reveals that Ghana's current laws, including the Public Health Act, 2012 (Act 851) and the Health Professions Regulatory Bodies Act, 2013 (Act 857), may not adequately address AI-related medical negligence. The paper recommends establishing multi-stakeholder committees, developing interim guidelines, adapting existing standards of care, promoting transparency and accountability, and fostering ongoing education and public engagement. The findings and recommendations contribute to the global policy debate on AI liability in medical negligence, emphasizing the need for collaborative, adaptive, and comprehensive legal and regulatory frameworks that prioritize patient safety, rights, and trust.

How Can IJDS Authors, Reviewers, and Editors Use (and Misuse) Generative AI?

How Can <i>IJDS</i> Authors, Reviewers, and Editors Use (and Misuse) Generative AI?

Новите субекти на правото – сред нас ли са системите с изкуствен интелект?

The study explores the issue of legal personality and liability of artificial intelligence (AI) systems. A real AI should have a will and self-awareness, but, at this point, there are mainly systems with a collective “cloud” intelligence that is located outside of them, supported by people (Sofia, the chatbot Miraya, the chatbot Tai, the xenobots). It is important to be clear about the fact whether robots are still only a “means”, a “tool” that facilitates human life, or whether they already have qualities that make them independent entities. Currently, AI systems are treated as objects of law. Granting legal personality similar to that of legal entities is not a solution as well because of their specific nature. If, in the future, intelligent systems become independent and emancipated from the human beings that created them, they could be considered a new specific subject – a legal person sui generis. The regulatory framework of international organizations in this area already places robots in the category of “electronic person” (EU) and binds their legal status to the protection of basic human rights. At this point, a number of practical issues are yet to be resolved – identifiability, establishment of a register, and up-to-dateness of the data in it. The possible granting of legal personality to AI systems, even specific or limited one, raises the question of the rights of robots themselves (procedural legal capacity, property rights, labour rights, tax legal personality), as well as of the responsibility for damages and their compensation. One of the most important issues in the development of intelligent machines is the extent to which we should allow them to make autonomous or automated decisions. Algorithms, which are initially set and related to the protection of fundamental human rights, should be stable, or “locked” for changes by artificial intelligence systems in the context of their improvement and self-learning. The issue of human control is important, especially in cases where decisions might affect human life, health, and social support. The rapid development of digital technologies should make us think about a future in which AI systems can deviate so much from the basic algorithms set by humans that joint and individual financial liability can be reached. The theory also discusses the issue of the applicability of criminal liability to robots.

The Liability of Artificial Intelligence's Moral Dilemma

Background: Artificial Intelligence (AI) represents the fundamentals of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Its advancement in technology has brought benefit to mankind over the years, which helps to amplify our daily lives in numerous ways. Among the technologies that have been innovated utilizing AI are Artificial Intelligence Lawyers (AI Lawyers), autonomous vehicles, AI judges, augmented drafting services and delivery drones. Although AI has brought many advancements in our lives, concerns are raised with regards to the moral implication of AI. This study aims to examine the situation wherein tools which incorporate AI would have to face a moral dilemma situation, or situations where AI had acted beyond what was instructed or programmed by the manufacturers. Thus, this work discusses whether the torts theory of liability on negligence is applicable in such a context. Methods: The methodology involved a doctrinal research in analysing the legal rules and existing studies in relation to AI and the negligence principle to develop a critical analysis of the literature. Besides, this research finds the application of principle negligence adopted in other countries, particularly in the United States, since it has employed AI much earlier compared to other countries. Results: The findings suggest that the question of the liability of AI is still at its infancy, as policy makers or regulators have yet to decide the liability of AI. However, the findings also suggest that theories of liabilities such as product liability and strict liability are possible to adduce liability on AI, so long as AI could be defined as a product. The research limitation is the scarcity amount of related studies available in the literature. The motivation of this work is in the importance to determine whether advanced AI may be liable for ‘moral decisions’ that cause damage to the victim under the principle of negligence.

THE MALAYSIAN PERSPECTIVE ON IMPOSING CIVIL LIABILITIES IN ROAD ACCIDENTS INVOLVING AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE

The advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technology has become the fundamental catalyst in the research and development of autonomous vehicle (AV). AVs equipped with AI are expected to perform better than humans and forecasted to reduce the number of road accidents. AV will improve humans’ quality of life, such as creating more mobility for the elderly and disabled, increasing productivity, and creating an environmentally friendly system. Despite AV’s promising abilities, reports indicate that AV can go phut, causing road fatalities to the AV user and other road users. The autonomous nature of AV exacerbates the difficulty in determining who is at fault. This article aims to examine the ability of the existing legal framework to identify the person at fault so as to determine the tortious liability in road accidents involving AV. This article demonstrated that the existing legal scheme is insufficient to determine tortious liability in road accidents involving AV. This article explored the possibility of shouldering the liability on the manufacturer, the user, and even on the AV itself. This article also investigated alternative approaches that could be adopted to resolve issues on the distribution of tortious liability in road accidents involving AV. The outcome of this article could contribute to issues relating to the liability of AI.

The Expert Group’s Report on Liability for Artificial Intelligence and Other Emerging Digital Technologies: a critical assessment

This article offers a critical discussion of the “Report on Liability for Artificial Intelligence and Other Emerging Digital Technologies” released by the Expert Group on Liability and New Technologies. In particular, the authors consider: the excessive diversity of applications encompassed through the notion of “artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies”; the distinction between high- and low-risk applications as a potential source of legal uncertainty; the primary reliance on evidentiary rules over substantive ones; the problematic role attributed to safety rules; the unclear relationship between the Product Liability Directive and other ad hoc liability regimes; the radical exclusion of electronic personhood as a way of addressing liability issues; and the limited contextualisation of compulsory insurance and no-compensation funds.

A Study on the Regulatory Systems and Apportionment of Liability of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare ? Focusing on Diagnostic AIs and Surgical Robots

A Study on the Regulatory Systems and Apportionment of Liability of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare ? Focusing on Diagnostic AIs and Surgical Robots

Liability for AI: public policy considerations

Liability for AI is the subject of a lively debate. Whether new liability rules should be introduced or not and how these rules should be designed hinges on the function of liability rules. Mainly, they create incentives for risk control, varying with their requirements – especially negligence versus strict liability. In order to do so, they have to take into account who is actually able to exercise control. In scenarios where a clear allocation of risk control is no longer possible, social insurance might step in.This article discusses public policy considerations concerning liability for artificial intelligence (AI). It first outlines the major risks associated with current developments in information technology (IT) (1.). Second, the implications for liability law are discussed. Liability rules are seen conceptualized as an instrument for risk control (2.). Negligence liability and strict liability serve different purposes making strict liability the rule of choice for novel risks (3.). The key question is, however, who should be held liable (4.). Liability should follow risk control. In future scenarios where individual risk attribution is no longer feasible social insurance might be an alternative (5). Finally, the innovation function of liability rules is stressed, affirming that appropriate liability rules serve as a stimulus for innovation, not as an impediment (6.).

Liability for Artificial Intelligence: A Proposal of the European Parliament

Digital autonomous systems are characterized by their ability to make their “own” decisions, i.e. decisions that are not fully determined by the software that animates them. As such, they pose a challenge to existing liability systems and to the general law of delict or torts. At the European level, the European Parliament took the initiative and drafted a Regulation on Liability for the Operation of Artificial-Intelligence-Systems it recommended for adoption by the Commission. The European Parliament distinguishes between high-risk-AI-systems, that shall be governed by a regime of strict liability, and “other” AI-systems, that create only normal risks and are left to fault-based liability, as defined in the legal systems of the Member States. With a view to the addresses of the new liability scheme, the draft regulation distinguishes between frontend- and backend-operators. The following chapter discusses the fundamental choices which the framers of the draft made. It concludes that the focus of the proposal on user liability is misguided, as the manufacturers are the central actors who determine the safety features of AI-systems. Moreover, introducing the concept of a backend-operator creates needless friction with the Products Liability Directive. While the commitment to strict liability for high-risk-AI-systems draws a wedge into existing regimes of strict liability under national law, the imposition of fault-based liability on users of ordinary AI-systems forces some Member States to roll back more generous rules of tort law.

Liability regimes for creative machines. A European perspective.

Artificial Intelligence liability has been the subject of a lively debate on the European regulators’ agenda for quite some time, part of a larger regulatory framework discussion related to the legal status of intelligent machines and AI regulation in general. As straightforward as the answer might seem to the question on whether AI systems should be granted legal status, and as such become holders of rights and duties, contradictory regulatory loopholes exist that make it possible for machines to be aligned on the same legal frontier as humans. Namely, the recent judicial precedent in the DABUS case, where an AI was granted inventorship, has shed light on the need to harmonise and unify AI regulatory provisions regarding the legals status of AI, while creating and maintaining an ecosystem that could balance the preservation of individual safety and fundamental rights without overly inhibiting innovation in AI. This article addresses the issue of machine liability in light of the current European regulatory framework on AI, while considering machine creativity as a medium for granting legal status to AI systems.

Critical considerations on Artificial Intelligence liability: e-personality propositions

O presente artigo objetiva discutir a noção de responsabilidade pelos atos praticados por entidades inteligentes artificialmente. Incumbe ao primeiro tópico a análise e definição do termo inteligência artificial, enquanto o segundo pretende discutir e teorizar as diretrizes da responsabilidade em sentido amplo dessas entidades. Ao final, propõe-se que, apesar de tais entidades possuírem certo grau de autonomia, inexiste a presença de subjetividade em seus desígnios. Portanto, atribuir a causa e responsabilidade pessoalmente aos atos ilícitos cometidos por uma IA pode inviabilizar a produção científica-jurídica e legal. Como meio alternativo, propõe-se a incisão de uma responsabilidade objetiva para eventual resolução dos litígios que possam surgir a partir deste contexto. Ancora-se o presente raciocínio nos métodos de pesquisa dedutivo e integrado, bem como na hermenêutica legislativa.

Civil liability for artificial intelligence products versus the sustainable development of CEECs: which institutions matter?

The aim of this paper is to conduct a meta-analysis of the EU and CEECs civil liability institutions in order to find out if they are ready for the Artificial Intelligence (AI) race. Particular focus is placed on ascertaining whether civil liability institutions such as the Product Liability Directive (EU) or civil codes (CEECs) will protect consumers and entrepreneurs, as well as ensure undistorted competition. In line with the aforementioned, the authors investigate whether the civil liability institutions of the EU and CEECs are based on regulations that can be adapted to the new generation of robots that will be equipped with learning abilities and have a certain degree of unpredictability in their behaviour. The conclusion presented in the paper was drawn on the basis of a review of the current literature and research on national and European regulations. The primary contribution that this article makes is to advance the current of the research concerning the concepts of AI liability for damage and personal injury. A second contribution is to show that the current civil liability institutions of the EU as well as the CEECs are not sufficiently prepared to address the legal issues that will start to arise when self-driving vehicles or autonomous drones begin operating in fully autonomous modes and possibly cause property damage or personal injury.

Criminal Liability and Artificial Intelligence: Theoretical and Applied Aspects

The humanity is now at the threshold of a new era when a widening use of artificial intelligence (AI) will start a new industrial revolution. Its use inevitably leads to the problem of ethical choice, it gives rise to new legal issues that require urgent actions. The authors analyze the criminal law assessment of the actions of AI. Primarily, the still open issue of liability for the actions of AI that is capable of self-learning and makes a decision to act / not to act, which is qualified as a crime. As a result, there is a necessity to form a system of criminal law measures of counteracting crimes committed with the use of AI. It is shown that the application of AI could lead to four scenarios requiring criminal law regulation. It is stressed that there is a need for a clear, strict and effective definition of the ethical boundaries in the design, development, production, use and modification of AI. The authors argue that it should be recognized as a source of high risk. They specifically state that although the Criminal Code of the Russian Fe­deration contains norms that determine liability for cybercrimes, it does not eliminate the possibility of prosecution for infringements committed with the use of AI under the general norms of punishment for various crimes. The authors also consider it possible to establish a system to standardize and certify the activities of designing AI and putting it into operation. Meanwhile, an autonomous AI that is capable of self-learning is considerably different from other phenomena and objects, and the situation with the liability of AI which independently decides to undertake an action qualified as a crime is much more complicated. The authors analyze the resolution of the European Parliament on the possibility of granting AI legal status and discuss its key principles and meaning. They pay special attention to the issue of recognizing AI as a legal personality. It is suggested that a legal fiction should be used as a technique, when a special legal personality of AI can be perceived as an unusual legal situation that is different from reality. It is believed that such a solution can eliminate a number of existing legal limitations which prevent active involvement of AI into the legal space.

Integration of artificial intelligence into public life: some ethical and legal problems

««Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Право» — международный научно-теоретический рецензируемый журнал, публикующий материалы в следующих рубриках: Публичное и частное право: прикладные исследования Криминология Криминалистика Судебная экспертиза Исследования права с позиций социальных и гуманитарных (неюридических) наук Правовая жизнь: научно-практические заключения, комментарии и обзоры Сравнительное право Зарубежное право

A Study about Criminal Liability of Artificial Intelligence

A Study about Criminal Liability of Artificial Intelligence

Civil Liability for Artificial Intelligence

Civil Liability for Artificial Intelligence