[论文解读] The European AI Liability Directives -- Critique of a Half-Hearted Approach and Lessons for the Future

Philipp Hacker|arXiv (Cornell University)|Nov 25, 2022

Ethics and Social Impacts of AI被引用 21

一句话总结

本文批评欧盟提出的AI责任指令作为半心半意的方法，提出修订和面向全面、创新支持以及可持续AI监管的未来路线图。

ABSTRACT

As ChatGPT et al. conquer the world, the optimal liability framework for AI systems remains an unsolved problem across the globe. 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 and a revision of the Product Liability Directive. They constitute the final cornerstone of EU AI regulation. Crucially, the liability proposals and the 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 beyond. This paper makes three novel contributions. First, it examines in detail the Commission 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, which are collected in an Annex at the end of the paper. 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. This includes: a comprehensive framework for AI liability; provisions to support innovation; an extension to non-discrimination/algorithmic fairness, as well as explainable AI; and sustainability. 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 potentially also sustainable AI (SAI).

研究动机与目标

• 评估欧洲委员会提出的AI责任指令与产品责任指令及其与AI法案的一致性。
• 识别在修订中依赖证据披露和狭窄的推定而非实质性AI特定规则的缺口。
• 提出修订并面向未来的AI责任监管路径，支持创新、公平、可解释性和可持续性。

提出的方法

• 对欧洲委员会提案及其与AI法案之间关系的详细分析。
• 对依赖证据披露以及关于过错、缺陷与因果关系的有限推定进行批判性评估。
• 提出具体修订以解决已识别的缺口，详列于附录中。
• 对关键AI风险领域进行向后看综述，以绘制未来的欧盟及全球责任框架。

实验结果

研究问题

• RQ1 当前拟定的EU AI责任与产品责任指令提案的主要局限性是什么？
• RQ2 如何扩展EU责任框架，以更好覆盖AI特定风险、公平性、可解释性和可持续性？
• RQ3 需要哪些修订以将半心半意的方法转换为全面的AI责任体系？
• RQ4 未来在欧盟及其他地区的AI责任监管应走何种道路，以最佳促进创新和公众信任？

主要发现

• 这些提案在方向上迈出了一步，但被描述为半心半意的方法。
• 在这些提案下，AI责任将高度依赖证据披露以及对过错、缺陷和因果关系的狭义推定。
• 附录提供了针对已识别缺口的具体修订。
• 前瞻性路线图建议建立一个全面的AI责任框架、支持创新，并扩展对歧视/算法公正性和可解释性的关注。
• 作者主张将可持续性考虑纳入AI监管和责任之中，包括可持续性影响评估和可持续设计缺陷。