Research On The Tort Liability System Of Artificial Intelligence Products

The unknown makes people frighten,and the unknown makes people excited.The emergence of artificial intelligence technology is the product of human beings step by step overcoming their own contradictions.Artificial intelligence can be divided into different levels due to its degree of intelligence,namely,weak artificial intelligence,strong artificial intelligence,and super artificial intelligence.We are currently in the era of weak artificial intelligence developing to strong artificial intelligence.The law is not enough to be self-sufficient.Human beings can only act freely within the legal framework because of their legal status.This also applies to artificial intelligence.Should artificial intelligence be given legal subject status or object status?This is a pre-existing problem of regulating it.Only by determining the nature of the legal status of artificial intelligence can we control and manage it in conjunction with the existing legal system.The author believes that,theoretically speaking,artificial intelligence does not have free will,and its rational ability is not truly rational,and artificial intelligence does not enjoy the perceptual ability of human beings;from the current situation of social development,the development of AI has not made a substantial breakthrough.Most people still hold a conservative attitude towards granting it human-like status,and blindly granting artificial intelligence the legal subject status is likely to conflict with the concept of human rule;from the value pursuit of legal norms and the cost of legislation point,giving artificial intelligence the legal subject status without consent itself is a violation of the value principles such as fairness and justice.Moreover,in the case that the corresponding supporting system has not been established and perfected,the legislation to grant artificial intelligence legal subject status hastily,the cost is too high and the operability is not strong.Therefore,the author believes that artificial intelligence should maintain its instrumental characteristics and enjoy the status of legal object,so that it can be legitimate and reasonable.The emergence of smart technology has also changed the processing and manufacturing methods of traditional products.For artificial intelligence products,the legal system designed for traditional products has some content that is out of date.Therefore,the author intends to propose the following amendments:First,the scope of responsibility of traditional products cannot meet the development needs of intelligent products.In smart products,the types of producers should be accurately defined,with finished product producers,carrier producers,and carrier material producers as the main responsibilities.Importers and prospective producers of traditional product liability can also be covered.Designers who have a decisive influence on intelligent systems should be included in the scope of the main body of product responsibility.In addition,when the smart product warehousing or transporter is unable to bear the pre-payment liability,the victim should be supported in requesting damages from the direct infringer.Second,smart products are composed of actual "carriers" and software systems,and because software systems have characteristics such as complexity,ambiguity,and non-retrospection,traditional product-based defect judgment methods cannot be applied to smart products.But the defect identification model based on unreasonable risks as the main judgment basis can be applied to smart products.In addition,due to the different levels of product intelligence,the burden of proof of causality borne by the infringing parties is also very different.Therefore,the choice of causality theory should be based on the equivalent causality theory,supplemented by probabilistic causality,rather than the current one.Single applicable model.Third,after the intelligent system designer is separated from the producer,he should follow the legal principles of risk benefit and risk control to assume no-fault responsibility.In addition,for the sustainable development of the smart product industry,smart system designers can apply the traditional product manufacturers' exemptions by analogy,but the designer should presuppose whether to perform the follow-up observation obligation when proposing the second and third reasons for defense.Otherwise,the judge cannot support the designer's request for exemption.