The European AI liability directives – Critique of a half-hearted approach and lessons for the future

责任 指令 产品责任 法律与经济学 欧洲联盟 严格责任 业务 危害 法学 政治学 经济 计算机科学 国际贸易 程序设计语言
作者
Philipp Hacker
出处
期刊:Computer Law & Security Review [Elsevier BV]
卷期号:51: 105871-105871 被引量:30
标识
DOI:10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105871
摘要

The optimal liability framework for AI systems remains an unsolved problem across the globe. With ChatGPT and other large generative models taking the technology to the next level, solutions are urgently needed. In a much-anticipated move, the European Commission advanced two proposals outlining the European approach to AI liability in September 2022: a novel AI Liability Directive (AILD) and a revision of the Product Liability Directive (PLD). They constitute the final cornerstone of AI regulation in the EU. Crucially, the liability proposals and the proposed EU AI Act are inherently intertwined: the latter does not contain any individual rights of affected persons, and the former lack specific, substantive rules on AI development and deployment. Taken together, these acts may well trigger a "Brussels effect" in AI regulation, with significant consequences for the US and other countries. Against this background, this paper makes three novel contributions. First, it examines in detail the liability proposals and shows that, while making steps in the right direction, they ultimately represent a half-hearted approach: if enacted as foreseen, AI liability in the EU will primarily rest on disclosure of evidence mechanisms and a set of narrowly defined presumptions concerning fault, defectiveness and causality. Hence, second, the article suggests amendments to the proposed AI liability framework. They are collected in a concise Annex at the end of the paper. I argue, inter alia, that the dichotomy between the fault-based AILD Proposal and the supposedly strict liability PLD Proposal is fictional and should be abandoned; that an EU framework for AI liability should comprise one fully harmonizing regulation instead of two insufficiently coordinated directives; and that the current proposals unjustifiably collapse fundamental distinctions between social and individual risk by equating high-risk AI systems in the AI Act with those under the liability framework. Third, based on an analysis of the key risks AI poses, the final part of the paper maps out a road for the future of AI liability and regulation, in the EU and beyond. More specifically, I make four key proposals. Effective compensation should be ensured by combining truly strict liability for certain high-risk AI systems with general presumptions of defectiveness, fault and causality in cases involving SMEs or non-high-risk AI systems. The paper introduces a novel distinction between illegitimate- and legitimate-harm models to delineate strict liability's scope. Truly strict liability should be reserved for high-risk AI systems that, from a social perspective, should not cause harm (illegitimate-harm models, e.g., autonomous vehicles or medical AI). Models meant to cause some unavoidable harm by ranking and rejecting individuals (legitimate-harm models, e.g., credit scoring or insurance scoring) may merely face rebuttable presumptions of defectiveness and causality. General-purpose AI systems and Foundation Models should only be subjected to high-risk regulation, including liability for high-risk AI systems, in specific high-risk use cases for which they are deployed. Consumers, in turn, ought to be liable based on regular fault, in general. Furthermore, innovation and legal certainty should be fostered through a comprehensive regime of safe harbours, defined quantitatively to the best extent possible. Moreover, trustworthy AI remains an important goal for AI regulation. Hence, the liability framework must specifically extend to non-discrimination cases and provide for clear rules concerning explainability (XAI). Finally, awareness for the climate effects of AI, and digital technology more broadly, is rapidly growing in computer science. In diametrical opposition to this shift in discourse and understanding, however, EU legislators have long neglected environmental sustainability in both the draft AI Act and the proposed liability regime. To counter this, I propose to jump-start sustainable AI regulation via sustainability impact assessments in the AI Act and sustainable design defects in the liability regime. In this way, the law may help spur not only fair AI and XAI, but also sustainable AI (SAI).
最长约 10秒,即可获得该文献文件

科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI
更新
PDF的下载单位、IP信息已删除 (2025-6-4)

科研通是完全免费的文献互助平台,具备全网最快的应助速度,最高的求助完成率。 对每一个文献求助,科研通都将尽心尽力,给求助人一个满意的交代。
实时播报
闪闪如南发布了新的文献求助10
1秒前
英俊的铭应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
1秒前
大个应助大喵采纳,获得10
1秒前
科目三应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
1秒前
酷波er应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
1秒前
科研通AI2S应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
1秒前
李爱国应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
1秒前
Akim应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
1秒前
FashionBoy应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
1秒前
在水一方应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
1秒前
CipherSage应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
2秒前
小蘑菇应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
2秒前
2秒前
2秒前
2秒前
白白白完成签到 ,获得积分10
4秒前
MXene完成签到,获得积分10
4秒前
酒玖柒完成签到 ,获得积分10
6秒前
6秒前
称心嫣娆发布了新的文献求助10
7秒前
Owen应助zyf采纳,获得10
7秒前
8秒前
顾矜应助插秧露娜采纳,获得10
8秒前
9秒前
陈强强完成签到,获得积分10
10秒前
Tsuns完成签到 ,获得积分10
11秒前
大喵发布了新的文献求助10
12秒前
啦啦啦完成签到,获得积分10
13秒前
13秒前
14秒前
14秒前
16秒前
17秒前
Mano完成签到,获得积分10
18秒前
小熊饼干发布了新的文献求助10
18秒前
18秒前
奇拉维特完成签到 ,获得积分10
18秒前
zyf发布了新的文献求助10
19秒前
19秒前
20秒前
高分求助中
A new approach to the extrapolation of accelerated life test data 1000
ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription, 12th edition 500
‘Unruly’ Children: Historical Fieldnotes and Learning Morality in a Taiwan Village (New Departures in Anthropology) 400
Indomethacinのヒトにおける経皮吸収 400
Phylogenetic study of the order Polydesmida (Myriapoda: Diplopoda) 370
基于可调谐半导体激光吸收光谱技术泄漏气体检测系统的研究 350
Robot-supported joining of reinforcement textiles with one-sided sewing heads 320
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 材料科学 医学 生物 工程类 有机化学 生物化学 物理 内科学 纳米技术 计算机科学 化学工程 复合材料 遗传学 基因 物理化学 催化作用 冶金 细胞生物学 免疫学
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 3989797
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 3531910
关于积分的说明 11255394
捐赠科研通 3270563
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 1805008
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 882157
科研通“疑难数据库(出版商)”最低求助积分说明 809190