人工智能致第三方损害的责任承担：法经济学的视角

吴维锭; 张潇剑

人工智能致第三方损害的责任承担：法经济学的视角

北京大学法学院，北京 100871

基金项目:

教育部人文社会科学项目 10YJA820134

详细信息

作者简介:
吴维锭(1995-)，男，湖南岳阳人，北京大学法学院研究生

张潇剑(1960-)，男，黑龙江哈尔滨人，北京大学法学院教授，博士生导师

中图分类号: DF0-059;TP18
计量
- 文章访问数: 115
- HTML全文浏览量: 138
- PDF下载量: 17
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2019-02-18
- 网络出版日期: 2021-05-27
- 刊出日期: 2019-05-28

On Liability for the Third Party Damage Caused by Artificial Intelligence: A Perspective of Law and Economics

Law School, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China

摘要

摘要: 法学界对于人工智能的法律地位形成了主体论和客体论两派观点，前者主张赋予人工智能以一定的主体地位，后者则将人工智能定性为财产或工具。对于人工智能造成的第三方损害，主体论认为应当由人工智能承担独立责任，其责任财产来源于制造者或者使用者预先缴纳的资金池，资金池之外的制造者或使用者无须承担更多的责任，而客体论认为制造商或者使用者应当对人工智能造成的损害承担无限责任，但二者之争停留在主观应然层面，缺乏客观实然的分析。法经济学视角下法律规则在效率上存在优劣之分，区分的标准有“更安全地从事活动”和“从事更安全的活动”两种范式。主体论和客体论构造的法律规则在人工智能的不同应用领域有着不同的效率：在自动驾驶车领域，客体论更有效率；在智能投资顾问领域，主体论更有效率。
- 人工智能 /
- 第三方损害 /
- 责任承担 /
- 法律责任 /
- 自动驾驶 /
- 智能投资 /
- 法经济学
Abstract: As for the legal status of AI, there are two opposing views in the lawcommunity : subjectivism and objectivism. Subjectivism advocates giving AI a certain subjectivity, while objectivism defines AI as property or tool. For the third-party damage caused by AI, the subjectivism holds that AI should bear independent responsibility, while the liable property comes from the pool of funds paid in advance by the manufacturer or user. The manufacturer or user except for the pool of funds need not bear more responsibility. By contrast, the objectivism holds that the manufacturer or user should bear unlimited liability for the damage caused by AI. The existing controversy between subjectivism and objectivism remains at the subject level, lacking objective analysis. From the perspective of law and economics, there are advantages and disadvantages in the efficiency of legal rules. There are two paradigms for distinguishing legal rules: "be engaged in activities safer" and "be engaged in safer activities". The legal rules constructed by subjectivism and objectivism have different efficiency in different application fields of artificial intelligence. Objectivism is more efficient in the field of automobile, while subjectivism is more efficient in the field of intelligent investment consultant.
- artificial intelligence /
- the third party damage /
- responsibility /
- legal liability /
- autopilot /
- intelligent investment /
- law and economics

HTML全文

参考文献(48)

[1]	GAIL GOTTEHRER. The impact of the artificial intelligence revolution on the law[J]. Women Lawyers Journal, 2018, 103(2): 19.
[2]	科斯, 诺思, 威廉姆森, 等. 制度、契约与组织——从新制度经济学角度透视[M]. 刘刚, 冯健, 杨其静, 等, 译. 北京: 经济科学出版社, 2003: 2.
[3]	BRYANT WALKER SMITH. Automated driving and product liability[J]. Michigan State Law Review, 2017, 1: 71. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2923240
[4]	ROBERT W PETERSON. New technology-old law: autonomous vehicles and California's insurance framework[J]. Santa Clara Law Review, 2012, 52(4): 1358-1359. http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/saclr52&section=42
[5]	司晓, 曹建峰. 论人工智能的民事责任: 以自动驾驶汽车和智能机器人为切入点[J]. 法律科学(西北政法大学学报), 2017(5): 166-173. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DOUB201705016.htm
[6]	谢晖. 论法律价值与制度修辞[J]. 河南大学学报: 社会科学版, 2017(1): 1-27. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HNDS201701001.htm
[7]	龙文懋. 人工智能法律主体地位的法哲学思考[J]. 法律科学(西北政法大学学报), 2018(5): 24-31. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DOUB201805003.htm
[8]	THOMAS KIRCHBERGER. European union policy-making on robotics and artificial intelligence: selected issues[J]. Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy, 2017, 13: 203. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/325015955_European_Union_Policy-Making_on_Robotics_and_Artificial_Intelligence_Selected_Issues
[9]	JASON CHUNG, AMANDA ZINK. Hey Watson-can I sue you for malpractice-examining the liability of artificial intelligence in medicine[J]. Asia Pacific Journal of Health Law & Ethics, 2018, 11(2): 67. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3076576
[10]	郑志峰. 自动驾驶汽车的交通事故侵权责任[J]. 法学, 2018(4): 16-29. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-0208.2018.04.002
[11]	JEFFREY K GURNEY. Driving into the unknown: examining the crossroads of criminal law and autonomous vehicles[J]. Wake Forest Journal of Law & Policy, 2015, 5(2): 414. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2543696
[12]	SOPHIA H DUFFY, JAMIE PATRICK HOPKINS. Sit, stay, drive: the future of autonomous car liability[J]. SMU Science and Technology Law Review, 2013, 16(3): 118.
[13]	DAVID C VLADECK. Machines without principals: liability rules and artificial intelligence[J]. Washington Law Review, 2014, 89(1): 121.
[14]	WESTON KOWERT. The foreseeability of human-artificial intelligence interactions[J]. Texas Law Review, 2017, 96(1): 183. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/322151957_The_foreseeability_of_human-artificial_intelligence
[15]	李扬, 李晓宇. 康德哲学视点下人工智能生成物的著作权问题探讨[J]. 法学杂志, 2018(9): 43-54. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-FXAS201809005.htm
[16]	玛格丽特·A·博登. 人工智能哲学[M]. 刘西瑞, 王汉琦, 译. 上海: 上海译文出版社, 2003: 56.
[17]	梁志文. 论人工智能创造物的法律保护[J]. 法律科学(西北政法大学学报), 2017(5): 156-165. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DOUB201705015.htm
[18]	RYAN CALO. Robotics and the lessons of cyberlaw[J]. California Law Review, 2015, 103(3): 554. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2402972
[19]	刘宪权, 胡荷佳. 论人工智能时代智能机器人的刑事责任能力[J]. 法学, 2018(1): 40-47. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-FXZZ201801005.htm
[20]	张玉洁. 论人工智能时代的机器人权利及其风险规制[J]. 东方法学, 2017(6): 56-66. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-1466.2017.06.006
[21]	康德. 道德形而上学基础[M]. 孙少伟, 译. 北京: 九州出版社, 2006: 83-84.
[22]	龙文懋. 精神分析视野下的人权批判——科斯塔斯·杜兹纳精神分析法学评述[J]. 环球法律评论, 2013(1): 92-101. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-6728.2013.01.008
[23]	LAWRENCE B SOLUM. Legal personhood for artificial intelligences[J]. North Carolina Law Review, 1992, 70(4): 1262. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1108671
[24]	尹田. 民法基本原则与调整对象立法研究[J]. 法学家, 2016(5): 17. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-FXJA201605003.htm
[25]	李拥军. 从"人可非人"到"非人可人": 民事主体制度与理念的历史变迁——对法律"人"的一种解析[J]. 法制与社会发展, 2005(2): 45-52. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SFAS200502004.htm
[26]	MARK A CHINEN. The co-evolution of autonomous machines and legal responsibility[J]. Virginia Journal of Law & Technology, 2016, 20(2): 378. http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/faculty/757
[27]	郭少飞. "电子人"法律主体论[J]. 东方法学, 2018(3): 38-49. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-1466.2018.03.005
[28]	孙占利. 智能机器人法律人格问题论析[J]. 东方法学, 2018(3): 10-17. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-1466.2018.03.002
[29]	许绍吉. 矛盾关系与对立关系划分依据的商榷[J]. 探索, 1985(3): 59-61. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SUTA198503020.htm
[30]	HERBERT HOVENKAMP. Positivism in law and economics[J]. California Law Review, 1990, 78(4): 815-852. doi: 10.2307/3480715
[31]	E·博登海默. 法理学: 法律哲学与法学方法[M]. 邓正来, 译. 北京: 中国政法大学出版社, 2017: 129-130.
[32]	哈特. 法律的概念[M]. 张文显, 郑成良, 杜景义, 译. 北京: 中国大百科全书出版社, 1996: 181-189.
[33]	马太. 比较法律经济学[M]. 沈宗灵, 译. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2005: 3.
[34]	罗伯特·考特, 托马斯·尤伦. 法和经济学[M]. 史晋川, 董雪兵, 等译. 上海: 格致出版社, 2012: 7.
[35]	HEIDI LI FELDMAN. Objectivity in legal judgment[M]. Michigan Law Review, 1994, 92(5): 1187-1255.
[36]	ROBERT D COOTER. Best right laws: value foundations of the economic analysis of law[J]. Notre Dame Law Review, 1989, 64(5): 826. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/254558333_The_Best_Right_Laws_Value_Foundations_of_the_Economic_Analysis_of_Law
[37]	盖多·卡拉布雷西. 事故的成本——法律与经济的分析[M]. 毕竞悦, 陈敏, 宋小维, 译. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2008: 62.
[38]	波斯纳. 法律的经济分析[M]. 蒋兆康, 译. 北京: 中国大百科全书出版社, 1997: 20.
[39]	R H COASE. The problem of social cost[J]. Journal of Law & Economics, 1960, 3: 2.
[40]	卢现祥, 朱巧云. 新制度经济学[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2012: 137-139.
[41]	波林斯基. 法和经济学导论[M]. 郑戈, 译. 北京: 法律出版社, 2009.
[42]	陶盈. 机器学习的法律审视[J]. 法学杂志, 2018(9): 55-63. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-FXAS201809006.htm
[43]	许中缘. 论智能机器人的工具性人格[J]. 法学评论, 2018(5): 153-164. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-FXPL201805014.htm
[44]	高丝敏. 智能投资顾问模式中的主体识别和义务设定[J]. 法学研究, 2018(5): 40-57. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-LAWS201805003.htm
[45]	冯象. 木腿正义——关于法律与文学[M]. 广州: 中山大学出版社, 1999: 24.
[46]	阿拉斯戴尔·麦金太尔. 谁之正义?何种合理性?[M]. 万俊人, 吴海针, 王今一, 译. 北京: 当代中国出版社, 1996.
[47]	苗妙. 技术创新的法律制度基础: 理论与框架[J]. 广东财经大学学报, 2014(4): 89-97. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SONG201404011.htm
[48]	SAM N LEHMAN-WILZIG. Frankenstein unbound: towards a legal definition of artificial intelligence[J]. FUTURES, 1981, 13(6): 442-457. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/278394289_frankenstein_unbound