Legal guidelines 'seat belt' for artificial intelligence use

Editor's note: China's Supreme People's Court has issued guidelines to address an array of disputes related to the misuse of artificial intelligence. China Central Television spoke to Shen Weixing, dean of the Institute for Studies on Artificial Intelligence and Law at Tsinghua University, to explain the guidelines. Below are excerpts of the interview. The views don't necessarily represent those of China Daily.

The wide range of applications of AI has given rise to instances where a person's name, face, voice or other personal attributes are being used to create digital avatars or representations. These digital representations can infringe on the basic rights of the individuals they seek to portray.

Moreover, if a digital avatar is used for improper conduct or false statements, causing harm to an individual, it may also infringe upon the rights and interests of third parties.

The new guidelines are very clear: such technologies may be employed for such purposes, but only after authorization is granted by the subject.

The release of these guidelines will help better protect people's basic personality rights and provide clear judicial direction for the development of AI on the principles of putting people first and ensuring that technology serves the public good.

Personality-rights injunctions are not new in Chinese law. They are already addressed in the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China. The system was established largely in response to the characteristics of the internet age, and now the AI era, where the cost of committing an infringement can be extremely low while information can spread at tremendous speed.

By the time a lawsuit has concluded, it may be too late to provide an effective remedy. In such circumstances, a personality-rights injunction can be the most effective legal mechanism.

A personality-rights injunction refers to a judicial order that is issued when an AI application or use scenario involves an ongoing or imminent infringement of a natural person's basic personality rights. The court can order the infringing party to cease its actions.

The Civil Code already contains provisions for issuing such injunctions. The new guidelines further clarify that different measures should be adopted based on the specific circumstances of each case.

At the same time, they make it clear that the protection provided by a personality-rights injunction must not go beyond what is necessary, leaving sufficient room for the development of AI platforms.

Autonomous driving is one of the fastest-growing applications of AI, but the sector has long faced the challenge of allocating responsibility when accidents occur. The guidelines state that if an accident involves a vehicle with driver-assistance features, the driver, manufacturer and seller will share the liability.

One major concern raised during the drafting of the guidelines was that regulation might hinder technological progress and industrial innovation. However, the guidelines strike a balance between safety and development.

In fact, failing to develop technology can itself pose significant risks. Establishing clear rules is like a "seat belt" for technological development. Only when clear rules are in place can the industry develop rapidly and sustainably.

With regard to liability for infringement, the guidelines make it clear that liability is based on fault. This means that without fault, there is no liability. This will prevent the indiscriminate imposition of liability and mitigate excessive legal risks that could dampen enthusiasm for innovation and AI development.