摘要
人工智能法规制的重点已从替代问题转向风险问题。以欧盟《人工智能法》为代表的立法将风险分为产品风险与基本权利风险,将风险级别分为禁止性风险、高风险、有限风险和最小风险,并对生成式人工智能与大模型作出特殊规定。此种分类在具有合理性的同时也引发了内在紧张关系,此种分级存在不科学与僵化的困境,对生成式人工智能与大模型的规制也不尽合理。欧盟《人工智能法》的困境根源在于追求对人工智能风险的统一化规制。我国人工智能立法不应简单效仿欧盟,应坚持对人工智能风险的场景化规制,将人工智能应用者或其构成产品作为风险规制的对象。对人工智能系统及其提供者,应注重国家安全、重大公共安全规制与其他领域的自我规制。人工智能风险规制应区分市场主体与公权力机构主体,注重用侵权法对市场化的人工智能风险进行事后规制。
The law of artificial intelligence has shifted from the substitution problem to the risk problem.The EU AI Act distinguishes risks into product risk and risk to fundamental rights,categorizes risk levels into forbidden-risk,high-risks,limited-risks and minimal-risks,and makes special provisions for generative artificial intelligence and foundation models.While its classification is reasonable,there is also internal tension.Its risk grading is unscientific and rigid,and the regulation of generative artificial intelligence and large model is unreasonable.The root cause of the EU AI Act legislative dilemma in artificial intelligence lies in its excessive pursuit of unified regulation of AI risk.China's artificial intelligence legislation should not simply follow the example of the European Union.China should adhere to the principle of contextual regulation of AI risk,and supervise risk according to specific industries,sectors,and existing legal relationships.The law should take AI users or their integrated products as the object of risk regulations.For AI providers and AI systems themselves,the law should focus on self-regulation and limited issues such as national security and major public safety regulation.The law should also distinguish market entities and public authorities and utilize the tort law to impose ex post regulation on the former ones.
出处
《法律科学（西北政法大学学报）》
CSSCI
北大核心
2024年第5期3-18,共16页
Science of Law：Journal of Northwest University of Political Science and Law
基金
科技部2022年度重大项目(2022ZD0120100)“可信人工智能立法制度建设研究”
