skip to main content
10.1145/3371425.3371476acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaiipccConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Criminological risks and legal aspects of artificial intelligence implementation

Authors Info & Claims
Published:19 December 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

The use of AI inevitably leads to the problem of ethical choice, raises legal issues that require prompt intervention. The article presents the results of a detailed study of the opinions of leading scientists involved in the study of social aspects of AI. The key characteristics of AI that carry criminological risks are identified, the types of criminological risks of using AI are identified, the author's classification of these risks is proposed. The results of a detailed analysis of the legal regulation of the legal personality of AI are presented. Formulated options for bringing to justice those responsible for the actions of the AI, having the ability to self-learning, who decided to commit actions / inactions that qualify as a crime. Authors argue the need for a clear, rigorous and effective definition of ethical frameworks in the development, design, production, use and modification of AI. Arguments are made about the need to recognize AI as a source of increased danger. The paper analyzes the content of the resolution of the European Parliament on the possibility of endowing AI with "legal status". Special attention is paid to the question of giving the AI a personality. It is proposed to use legal fiction as a technique in which the specific legal personality of AI can be perceived as a non-standard legal position, different from reality. It is assumed that such a decision can remove a number of legal restrictions that exist today and prevent the active involvement of AI in the legal space.

References

  1. Turing A (1950). Computing Machinery and Intelligence. Mind, New Series, 59(236), 433--460.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. McCarthy J, Minsk M L, Rochester N and Shannon C E (2006). A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence. August 31, 1955. AI Magazine, 27(4), 12--14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Markets and Markets Research Private Ltd (2018). AI in Fintech Market by Component (Solution, Service), Application Area (Virtual Assistant, Business Analytics & Reporting, Customer Behavioral Analytics), Deployment Mode (Cloud, On-Premises), and Region. Global forecast to 2022. Retrieved from: https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/ai-in-fintech-market-34074774.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. PwC (2017). Artificial intelligence: do not miss the benefit. Retrieved from: https://www.pwc.ru/ru/press-releases/2017/artificial-intelligence-enlargement.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Reiff N (2017). Artificial Intelligence Hedge Funds Outperforming Humans. Investopedia. Retrieved from: https://www.investopedia.com/news/artificial-intelligence-hedge-funds-outperforming-humans/#ixzz4YszizhII.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Jesse McWatters R (2018). The New Physics of Financial Services. Part of the Future of Financial Services series: understanding how artificial intelligence is transforming the financial ecosystem. Deloitte, World Economic Forum, 167. Retrieved from: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_New_Physics_of_Financial_Services.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Statista (2017). Artificial Intelligence. Report. Retrieved from: https://www.statista.com/study/50485/artificial-intelligence/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. What Consumers Really Think About AI. Pega. Retrieved from: https://www1.pega.com/system/files/resources/2017-11/what-consumers-really-think-of-ai-infographic.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Arm Limited (2017). Global Artificial Intelligence Survey. Retrieved from: http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/history-artificial-intelligence/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Barrat D (2013). Humanity's Latest invention: Artificial intelligence and the end of the era of Homo sapiens. New York: Thomas Dunne Books, St. Martin's Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Afanasyev A (2018). Artificial intelligence or intelligence of subjects of detection, disclosure and investigation of crimes: what will win? Library CSL. Scientific journal, No. 3(38), 28--34.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Carriço G (2018). The EU and artificial intelligence: a human-centred perspective. European View, 17(1), 29--36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Ponkin I V and Redkina A I (2018). Artificial intelligence from the point of view of law. Bulletin of the Russian University of friendship of peoples. Series: Legal Sciences, 1(22), 91--109.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Morkhat P M (2017). Artificial intelligence: legal view. M.: BukiVedi, 257.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Amores J (2013). Multiple instance classification: review, taxonomy and comparative study. Artificial Intelligence, 201, 81--105.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Marron D (2018). Alter Reality: Governing the Risk of Identity Theft. The British Journal of Criminology, 48(1), 20--38.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Hawking S (2018). Brief Answers to the Big Questions. London: Random House LLC, 2018, 256.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Kurzweil R (2006). The singularity is near: when humans transcend biology. Penguin Books, 672.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Bostrom N (2016). Strategic Implications of Openness in AI Development. Technical Report, 1. Retrieved from: https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/reports/2016-1.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. ARM, Northstar survey (2018). AI today. AI tomorrow. Awareness, acceptance and anticipation of AI: a global consumer perspective. Retrieved from: https://pages.arm.com/rs/312-SAX-488/images/arm-ai-survey-report.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Ramm A and Kozachenko A (2019, March 5). A good face on a naval game, the Navy will have the ammunition with artificial intelligence. Retrieved from: https://iz.ru/841783/aleksei-ramm-aleksei-kozachenko/khoroshaia-mina-pri-morskoi-igre-flot-poluchit-boepripasy-s-iskusstvennym-intellektom.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Rutkin A (2014, September 13). The robot's dilemma. Magazine issue. 2986.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Casmi E (2018, October, 26). Opinion of millions of people: autonomous cars have to push the elderly and the young to save. The Network edition "Cnews". Retrieved from: http://www.cnews.ru/news/top/2018-10-26_mnenie_millionov_chelovek_bespilotnye_avto_dolzhny.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Karlyuk M V (2018). Investments in the future: artificial intelligence. Nonprofit partnership "Russian Council for international Affairs". Retrieved from: http://russiancouncil.ru/analytics-and-comments/analytics/eticheskie-i-pravovye-voprosy-iskusstvennogo-intellekta/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Kolenov S (2018, July 27). AI-oncologist IBM Watson was convicted of medical errors. Network edition "Hightech.plus" Retrieved from: https://hightech.plus/2018/07/27/ii-onkologa-ibm-watson-ulichili-vo-vrachebnih-oshibkah.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Wilner A S (2018). Cybersecurity and its discontents: artificial intelligence, the Internet of things, and digital misinformation. International Journal, 73(2), 308--316.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Vincent J (2017). Google is testing a new way of training its AI algorithms directly on your phone. The Verge. Retrieved from: https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/10/15241492/google-ai-user-data-federated-learning.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Ovchinsky V S (2018). Criminology of the digital world. M.: Norm: INFRA-M, 352.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Van der Wagen W and Pieters W (2015). From cybercrime to cyborg crime: botnets as hybrid criminal actor-networks. The British Journal of Criminology, 55(3), 578--595.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Williams M L, Burnap P and Sloan L (2017). Crime Sensing with Big Data: The Affordances and Limitions of using open-source communications to estimate crime patterns. The British Journal of Criminology, 57(2), 320--340.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Momi E De and Ferrigno G (2010). Robotic and artificial intelligence for keyhole neurosurgery: the ROBOCAST project, a multi-modal autonomous path planner. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine, 224(5), 715--727.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Kingston J K (2016). Artificial intelligence and legal liability. Research and Development in Intelligent Systems XXXIII: Incorporating Applications and Innovations in Intelligent Systems XXIV: Conference Paper, 269--279.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Bergen M (2018, March 19). Uber halts autonomous car tests after fatal crash in Arizona Bloomberg. Retrieved from: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-19/uber-autonomous-car-involved-in-fatal-crash-in-arizona.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Leenes R and Lucivero F (2014). Laws on Robots, Laws by Robots, Laws in Robots: Regulating Robot Behavior by Design. Law, Innovation and Technology, 6(2), 194--222.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Nevejans N (2016). European civil law rules in robotics: study. Policy Department C: «Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs», European Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs. PE 571.379, 15. Retrieved from: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/571379/IPOL_STU%282016%29571379_EN.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Uzhov F W (2017). Artificial intelligence as subject rights. Gaps in Russian legislation, 3, 357--360.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Delvaux M (2016). Draft Report with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL)). Committee on Legal Affairs, European Parliament, PE582.443v01-00, 22 p. Retrieved from: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=%2F%2FEP%2F%2FNONSGML%20COMPARL%20PE-582.443%2001%20DOC%20PDF%20V0%2F%2FEN.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Prakken H (2016). How AI & law can help autonomous systems obey the law: a position paper. In Proceedings of the 22nd European Conference on Artificial Intelligence Workshop on Artificial Intelligence for Justice. Hague: VU University Amsterdam, 42--46. Retrieved from: http://www.ai.rug.nl/~verheij/AI4J/papers/AI4J_paper_12_prakken.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Del Castillo A P (2017). A law on robotics and artificial intelligence in the EU? The Foresight Brief. Brussels : European Trade Union Institute, 2, 12 p.- Retrieved from: https://www.etui.org/content/download/32583/302557/file/Foresight_Brief_02_EN.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Radutniy O E (2017). Criminal liability of the artificial intelligence. Problems of legality, 138, 132--141.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Robertson J (2014). Human rights vs. robot rights: forecasts from Japan. Critical Asian Studies, 46(4), 571--598.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Hallevy G (2010). The criminal liability of artificial intelligence entities-from science fiction to legal social control. Akron Intellectual Property Journal, 4(2), 171--201.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Kopfstein J (2017). Should Robots Be Punished for Committing Crimes? Vocativ Website. Retrieved from: https://www.vocativ.com/417732/robots-punished-committing-crimes/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Criminological risks and legal aspects of artificial intelligence implementation

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader