Introduction
In the 21st century, mankind is faced with the acute issue of introducing artificial intelligence (hereinafter referred to as AI) into everyday life. In this article, the definitions of "artificial intelligence" and "robot" are not specially separated due to the actual convergence of these concepts. AI is the property of a technical or software system to perform functions that could previously be performed exclusively by a human or other biological being. And in this context, we are not talking about the simplest AI such as an iron or a microwave, we are talking about much more complex algorithms.If now we look at AI algorithms as intermediaries to achieve our goals, for example, we use the Yandex. Navigator "in order to get to the house quickly bypassing traffic jams, then in the future, perhaps, such algorithms will turn into our rulers. If you look behind the scenes of the Yandex. Navigator ”, we will see that thousands of motorists are transmitting data on the state of the roads every minute. That is why the application knows how to most efficiently pave the way to the house, saving our time. And what if there are thousands, no, - millions of people will transfer information about themselves, their political preferences, health status and the like to some application like "Manager RF" and this algorithm, taking into account statistical data, will be, for example,direct funds to support health care in one region, to develop education in another. In this case, the human species will simply be directly dependent on the actions of the AI ​​[11]. It sounds like fantasy, but we are getting closer to it than it might seem. Microsoft is developing and gradually introducing the Cortana application, which can become not just an assistant, but also a full-fledged representative of a person, for example, during negotiations. Other companies follow in this direction: Apple with Siri and Yandex with Alice. This technological development raises many questions. Can AI be recognized as the author of a work of science or art? Will AI be equal to humans in its rights? And, if the AI ​​driving the car makes an accident, as a result of which the passengers are injured,Is it possible to go to court and demand compensation for harm to health not from a person, but just think about it with AI ?! And who will be responsible: the passenger or the AI? Let's try to answer these questions, taking into account the opinion of scientists, using a study of judicial practice and legislation of a number of states.
1. Artificial expression "I". Can AI be recognized as the author of a work of science or art?
It is widely believed in society that AI cannot surpass a person, if not in all, then at least in one area for sure - this is an art and, sadly, this judgment is erroneous.
While Deep Blue, which beat Garry Kasparov at chess, was well enough taught the rules of the game by its creators, modern AI receives only a minimal amount of information from programmers, preferring independent machine learning. These programs modify commands and variables, creating an ever-better chain of code to accomplish the task at hand. Thus, the Alpha Go program learned to play the old Chinese board game "Go", which is many times more difficult than chess, while the program used completely new strategies, which greatly surprised the experts. Much more shocking is the fact that AI has learned to create unique works of science and art.
For example, the appearance in 2016 of The Next Rembrandt program destroyed the idea of ​​people that AI cannot create. This program analyzes Rembrandt's paintings and, on the basis of the data obtained, creates his own paintings that cannot be distinguished from the brush of the great master. Quite interesting information about the work of the program is given on the Microsoft website: “As a result of 18 months of joint work of Microsoft specialists, Delft Technical University, the Royal Mauritshuis Gallery and the Rembrandt House-Museum in Amsterdam, a unique picture of its kind, a portrait that was created with exceptional accuracy recreates the creative style of Rembrandt ”[10]. There is one more precedent associated with creation from AI.David Cope is an American composer and lecturer at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who developed the Emily Howell program, which is capable of creating music that imitates the masterpieces of Bach, Beethoven, Chopin and other composers. It should be noted that a number of experiments with professional musicians suggest that the music created by AI cannot be distinguished from the works of the great classics. AI does not lag behind humans in the field of science, for example, the Watson program collects patient data and, based on it, creates a personalized treatment schedule. In this context, the question certainly arises: who owns the right of authorship to these works of science and art?that a series of experiments with professional musicians suggests that the music created by AI cannot be distinguished from the works of the great classics. AI does not lag behind humans in the field of science, for example, the Watson program collects patient data and, based on it, creates a personalized treatment schedule. In this context, the question certainly arises: who owns the right of authorship to these works of science and art?that a series of experiments with professional musicians suggests that the music created by AI cannot be distinguished from the works of the great classics. AI does not lag behind humans in the field of science, for example, the Watson program collects patient data and, based on it, creates a personalized treatment schedule. In this context, the question certainly arises: who owns the right of authorship to these works of science and art?who owns the right of authorship to the specified works of science and art?who owns the right of authorship to the specified works of science and art?
The answer to this question from the point of view of the legislation of a number of states is the same. Under the UK Copyright Act, an author is defined as a person who uses a tool to achieve a goal. American legislation is based on the fact that a person can be the author of a work of science or art. Thus, in the well-known case of Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc. - 499 US 340, 111 S. Ct. 1282 (1991) [9]. The US Supreme Court points out that a work in which there is no minimal creative contribution of the author's consciousness cannot be subject to copyright. The issue of the presence of consciousness in AI will be considered in more detail later, but it should be noted right away that the AI ​​does not possess consciousness, therefore it turns out that only a person can be the author. As for the Russian Federation,then analyzing paragraph 1 of Article 1228 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter - the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), we can conclude that the author of a work of science or art can also only be an individual. Based on the literal interpretation of Article 1228 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, we come to the conclusion that the person who developed the program that created this work cannot be recognized as the author of a work of science and art, since “citizens who have not made a personal creative contribution are not recognized as the authors of the result of intellectual activity. to create such a result ”[2]. On this occasion, we quote A.A. Semyonova:Based on the literal interpretation of Article 1228 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, we come to the conclusion that the person who developed the program that created this work cannot be recognized as the author of a work of science and art, since “citizens who have not made a personal creative contribution are not recognized as the authors of the result of intellectual activity. to create such a result ”[2]. On this occasion, we quote A.A. Semyonova:Based on the literal interpretation of Article 1228 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, we come to the conclusion that the person who developed the program that created this work cannot be recognized as the author of a work of science and art, since “citizens who have not made a personal creative contribution are not recognized as the authors of the result of intellectual activity. to create such a result ”[2]. On this occasion, we quote A.A. Semyonova:
« « » , » [5, . 423].This position is also matched by article 136 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which states that the ownership of fruits, products, income belongs to the owner of the thing. But here, of course, it is worth noting that in accordance with paragraph 3 of Art. 1227 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, provisions on ownership and other property rights are not applied to intellectual rights. Thus, the question of authorship is, as it were, in a "suspended" state. Nevertheless, the answer to this question can possibly be found in international law, namely in article 12 of the UN Convention "On the use of electronic communications in international agreements" (2005) [1]. The essence of this rule is that transactions that were performed by a computer can be considered as actions of individuals or legal entities on whose behalf the computer is used.Due to the lack of judicial practice, this rule can be indirectly linked directly to the actions of AI.
Based on the foregoing, to the question of whether AI can be recognized by the author, the answer should be - no, at the moment it cannot. Unfortunately, Russian legislation does not have special rules regulating the activities of AI, so the question of who is considered the author of a work created by AI remains open.
At the moment, there is an obvious gap in Russian legislation that makes it possible to create a work without an author, which means that a work created by AI will be considered the public domain. The author is an individual, that is, a subject of civil law, therefore, in this case, there is a direct dependence on whether AI should be recognized as a subject of legal relations?
2. Individuals, legal entities and electronic persons
The question of what legal status should be extended to AI is quite relevant, and there are a huge variety of points of view on it in science.
It should be noted right away that at the moment there is a state, the filed of which is an android with AI. Thus, a precedent has been created, thanks to which we can say that the legal status of an individual extends to AI, as well as to a person. This state is Saudi Arabia, filed - Sofia (humanoid robot).
In our opinion, the decision of Saudi Arabia is hasty. It is hardly rational to extend the legal status of an individual to an object that clearly does not possess psycho-emotional properties inherent in a person. So, intelligence and consciousness are not similar concepts.
Consciousness is inherent in all people. It is understood as a set of electrochemical reactions in the cells of the brain, expressed in the body's experience of the events of the external world and the subsequent reaction to these events. In short, consciousness allows people to experience subjective feelings of pain, love, hate, happiness. Intelligence is the ability to use knowledge to influence the environment. In this regard, it should be noted the lack of consciousness in AI, as well as the lack of the ability to feel and desire anything.
Therefore, it is not advisable to equalize human and AI in legal status. Indeed, in this case, it turns out that we are creating a fiction: people and programs will perform approximately the same actions, wanting to achieve a certain result, will bear the same responsibility for their actions. It turns out that AI, along with humans, will receive fundamental rights: the right to life, the right to personal integrity, etc. But shouldn't we stick to the AI's presumption of unconsciousness? In view of the fact that AI does not have subjective experiences of the personality, it will stand out strongly against the background of a person, since it will clearly surpass it in many ways. And it is unlikely that AI will be able to independently comprehend the phrase "cogito ergo sum" in the near future.
It seems that AI should have a special legal status. So, V.V. Arkhipov, V.B. Naumov believe that the analogy with legal entities is applicable to AI [6]. Indeed, in this case, AI will have all the characteristics of a legal entity, with the exception of organizational unity. A.A. In this regard, Ivanov notes that a dual status of AI can arise, since it can be both an object and a subject of civil law [8]. From the point of view of this position, the question also arises about the right of ownership of things: on what right will the AI ​​possess things? Will this be a limited property right? It is not possible to answer these questions at the moment.
L.I. Safargaleev expresses the opinion that the rule used in Roman law is applicable to AI - servi res sunt (slaves - things), in his opinion, AI cannot be an independent subject of law, but it can acquire rights and obligations for its owner [5, C . 407].
All of the above positions have the right to exist, but, in our opinion, they are not without drawbacks, since the question inevitably arises of what will be the legal status of the AI ​​after the death of its owner? Following the realities of Russian civil legislation, it turns out that in order to acquire ownership of AI, we will need to wait 5 years, that is, in fact, during this period there will be an “illegal AI” who has intelligence, performs actions, but does not acquire any for whom the rights and obligations. What to do? Of course, in this case, we can treat AI as with cats, dogs and other animals in Ancient Egypt, that is, dispose of them together with their owners. But how rational is it?
It is true, in our opinion, J. Dewey once noted:
« , , » [12, P.657].Interesting to consider the issue of the legal status of AI is the resolution of the European Parliament of February 16, 2017 (hereinafter - the Resolution). The Resolution provides guidance to the European Commission on civil law rules on robotics (2015/2013 (INL)) [3]. In the text of this document, the legal status of AI is specific, AI becomes a kind of "electronic person". The Resolution emphasizes that AI is intended to complement human capabilities, not replace them. It is indicated that AI cannot, by its actions or inaction, cause harm to a person, as well as allow the possibility of causing harm, AI must obey all orders of a person, that is, in fact, three laws of robotics, formulated by science fiction writer Isaac Asimov in the story "Round Dance" in 1942 year. The approach formulated in the Resolution isin our opinion, it is the most appropriate, and here the question of the responsibility of AI immediately arises.
3. Who will be responsible?
Imagine that you are driving an artificial intelligence vehicle. The vehicle is in your possession and, unexpectedly, you enter a crowd of passers-by. Several passers-by were slightly injured, you experienced severe emotional stress, the bumper of the car was damaged. Who in this case will compensate for the damage caused to health, moral damage, damage to the car?
In accordance with Russian law, all losses will be reimbursed by the owner of the source of increased danger. But the AI ​​was driving the car. Wouldn't that be considered a force majeure? Could the car owner have realized the danger to others in time and took control? In the absence of judicial practice, it is difficult to answer this question, but a number of states have already introduced norms that regulate liability in the event of such incidents. It is worth dwelling in more detail on the experience of the FRG. So, in Germany in 2017, the “Eighth Law on Amendments to the Law on Road Traffic of June 16, 2017” [4] was adopted, which actually gave rise to the possibility of using unmanned vehicles. The law establishes that the driver can be distracted from what is happening on the road, but he is obliged to take control,if the AI ​​offers to do it in large part or in full. Also, the driver must take control if he realizes or must realize that further control of the AI ​​car is impossible, for example, when the driver sees that the AI-controlled car is heading towards a crowd of pedestrians, etc. In this case, if there was harm to a person or property through the fault of the driver, then he will bear responsibility, if the damage was caused due to a technical error, then the automaker will be responsible. In Germany, in our opinion, the approach to responsibility is really quite high-quality, since a motorist cannot and should not be held responsible if he could not take control of the car as a result of a technical error.Also, the driver must take control if he realizes or must realize that further control of the AI ​​car is impossible, for example, when the driver sees that the AI-controlled car is heading towards a crowd of pedestrians, etc. In this case, if there was harm to a person or property through the fault of the driver, then he will bear responsibility, if the damage was caused due to a technical error, then the automaker will be responsible. In Germany, in our opinion, the approach to responsibility is really quite high-quality, since a motorist cannot and should not be held responsible if he could not take control of the car as a result of a technical error.Also, the driver must take control if he realizes or must realize that further control of the AI ​​car is impossible, for example, when the driver sees that the AI-controlled car is heading towards a crowd of pedestrians, etc. In this case, if there was harm to a person or property through the fault of the driver, then he will bear responsibility, if the damage was caused due to a technical error, then the automaker will be responsible. In Germany, in our opinion, the approach to responsibility is really quite high-quality, since a motorist cannot and should not be held responsible if he could not take control of the car as a result of a technical error.when the driver sees that the AI ​​vehicle is heading towards a crowd of pedestrians, etc. In this case, if there was harm to a person or property through the fault of the driver, then he will bear responsibility, if the damage was caused due to a technical error, then the automaker will be responsible. In Germany, in our opinion, the approach to responsibility is really quite high-quality, since a motorist cannot and should not be held responsible if he could not take control of the car as a result of a technical error.when the driver sees that the AI ​​vehicle is heading towards a crowd of pedestrians, etc. In this case, if there was harm to a person or property through the fault of the driver, then he will bear responsibility, if the damage was caused due to a technical error, then the automaker will be responsible. In Germany, in our opinion, the approach to responsibility is really quite high-quality, since a motorist cannot and should not be held responsible if he could not take control of the car as a result of a technical error.the automaker will be responsible. In Germany, in our opinion, the approach to responsibility is really quite high-quality, since a motorist cannot and should not be held responsible if he could not take control of the car as a result of a technical error.the automaker will be responsible. In Germany, in our opinion, the approach to responsibility is really quite high-quality, since a motorist cannot and should not be held responsible if he could not take control of the car as a result of a technical error.
The issue of responsibility is also raised in the Resolution of the European Parliament of February 16, 2017 [3]. The document states that AI cannot be held responsible by itself, since its actions or inaction depend on the operator (owner), that is, AI is a kind of tool for achieving a specific goal. In view of the above, the responsibility is established not only of the owner of the AI, but also of the manufacturer, if any damage was caused due to a technical error. However, the Resolution also states that the higher the AI ​​autonomy, the less it can be regarded as a conventional tool. This begs the question: can AI be independently responsible for its actions or inactions? No, at the moment it cannot, but it is worth noting that as technology develops, lawyers will certainly return to this issue.So far, we can only offer options for AI responsibility. A completely working idea, in this regard, was proposed by G.A. Gadzhiev and E.A. Voinikanis [7]. Its essence lies in the fact that the AI ​​will be responsible for the account of the funds in the account directly with the AI. It is possible to implement this idea if, upon registration of any AI, its owner will contribute a certain amount, which will later be accumulated in the insurance fund and, in the event of an insured event, will be directed to its satisfaction. In the end, if AI is recognized as an independent subject of law, then it will be able to find a job, have its own bank account and independently donate money to its insurance fund.that the AI ​​will be responsible for the account of funds held in the account directly with the AI. It is possible to implement this idea if, during the registration of any AI, its owner will contribute a certain amount, which will later be accumulated in the insurance fund and, in the event of an insured event, will be directed to its satisfaction. In the end, if AI is recognized as an independent subject of law, then it will be able to find a job, have its own bank account and independently donate money to its insurance fund.that the AI ​​will be responsible for the account of funds held in the account directly with the AI. It is possible to implement this idea if, during the registration of any AI, its owner will contribute a certain amount, which will later be accumulated in the insurance fund and, in the event of an insured event, will be directed to its satisfaction. In the end, if AI is recognized as an independent subject of law, then it will be able to find a job, have its own bank account and independently donate money to its insurance fund.which in the future will be accumulated in the insurance fund and in the event of an insured event will be directed to its satisfaction. In the end, if AI is recognized as an independent subject of law, then it will be able to find a job, have its own bank account and independently donate money to its insurance fund.which in the future will be accumulated in the insurance fund and in the event of an insured event will be directed to its satisfaction. In the end, if AI is recognized as an independent subject of law, then it will be able to find a job, have its own bank account and independently donate money to its insurance fund.
Conclusion
At the moment, AI cannot be recognized as the author of a work of science or art, since such a possibility will appear only when AI is recognized as the subject of legal relations.
The laws of a number of states do not recognize AI as a subject of legal relations. However, Saudi Arabia granted citizenship to the Sophia robot, which indicates the recognition of the AI's status as an individual. This approach seems premature, since a person and AI do not coincide in terms of their psycho-emotional qualities and properties. At the same time, it is quite possible to speak about the recognition of the special status of an "electronic person" for AI. This would allow not to confuse concepts in law and in no way would violate the rights of people. The issue of AI liability is also unresolved. In the event of harm to a person or property, responsibility in accordance with the realities of the law will be borne either by the owner of the source that caused harm, or by its manufacturer. It seems that it is necessary to oblige to compensate for the harm caused,AI, if it has all the necessary capabilities for this, and primarily the availability of funds.
The issue of the accumulation of funds can be resolved by depositing funds into the insurance fund during the registration of the AI ​​by its owner, or if the AI ​​itself is able to earn money, then influence it using methods already known to us, for example, by debiting funds from a bank account etc.
This topic has a huge research potential. AI will certainly become a part of the future of humanity, so it is necessary to seriously approach issues related to its legal status and the regulation of relations with its participation.
This article was published earlier in the collection. The link to it will look like this: Vorobyova I.V., Salakhutdinov V.D. Problems of legal regulation of artificial intelligence // Malyshevskie readings - 2020. Science and education: the future and the goals of sustainable development: materials of the XVI international scientific conference, in 4 parts / ed. A.V. Semenov. - M .: ed. CHOUVO "MU im. S.Yu. Witte ", 2020. Part 4. - P. 62-72
Literature
1. The UN Convention "On the Use of Electronic Messages in International Agreements" [Electronic resource] // www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/elect_com.shtml (date of access: 30.12.2019).
2. Part four of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. // SZ RF. - 2006. - No. 52. - Art. 5496.
3. Resolution of the European Parliament of February 16, 2017. [Electronic resource] // robopravo.ru/riezoliutsiia_ies (date of access: 12/30/2019 ).
4. The eighth law on amendments to the Law on road traffic of June 16, 2017 [Electronic resource] // robopravo.ru/initsiativy_frantsii_v_sfierie_robototiekhniki_2013_2 (date of access: 30.12.2019).
5. E-commerce and interrelated areas (legal regulation): collection of articles / .. Ostanina, L.V. Kuznetsova, E.S. Khokhlov [and others]; hands. ed. count and otv. ed. Doctor of Law M.A. Rozhkova. - Moscow: Statute, 2019 .-- 448 p.
6. Arkhipov BB, Naumov VB Artificial intelligence and autonomous devices in the context of law: on the development of the first law on robotics in Russia // Proceedings of SPII RAS. - 2017.- Iss. 6 (55). - S. 46-62.
7. Gadzhiev G.A., Voinikanis E.A. Can a robot be a subject of law (search for legal norms to regulate the digital economy)? // Right. Journal of the Higher School of Economics. - 2018. - No. 4. -C. 24-48.
8. Ivanov A.A. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? [Electronic resource] // zakon.ru/blog/2017/2/15/mechtayut_li_androidy_ob_elektroovcah(date of access: 29.12.2019).
9. Weak I.I. The Feist v. Rural Telephone: Copyright Fundamentals from the US Supreme Court. [Electronic resource] // zakon.ru/blog/2019/04/11/delo_feist_v_rural_telephone_osnovy_avtorskogo_prava_ot_verhovnogo_suda_ssha#comment_490346 (date accessed: 29.12.2019).
10. Next Rembrandt [Electronic resource] // news.microsoft.com/ru-ru/sleduyushhij-rembrandt (date accessed: 28.12.2019).
11. Tikhomirov Yu.A., Arkhipova N.I., Kosyakova N.I. Russian Humanitarian Law - a textbook for universities / Russian State University for the Humanities; edited by Tikhomirov Yu.A. (executive editor), N. I. Arkhipova, N. I. Kosyakova ... Moscow, 1998.
12. Dewey, J. The Historic Background of Corporate Legal Personality // Yale Law Journal. - 1926. No. 35. - pp. 655 - 673.