KEY APPROACHES TO THE LEGAL REGULATION OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Dmitry L. Kuteynikov,Osman A. Izhaev,Sergey S. Zenin,Valerian A. Lebedev

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21684/2411-7897-2022-8-1-209-232

2022-01-01

Abstract:The purpose of this article is to identify the features of legal approaches to the regulation of public relations arising in connection with the emergence of artificial intelligence systems in the European Union, the United States of America, the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation. The authors conducted a review of regulatory legal acts in the field of functioning of artificial intelligence systems adopted or under consideration in these jurisdictions. In the course of the study, the key features of the approaches used to legal regulation were identified. The paper argues that the EU plans to use a risk-based approach and impose regulatory requirements on subjects, depending on the degree of a threat to security and human rights that the use of artificial intelligence poses. The USA prefer not to create a preventive system of legal regulation, their approach involves the regulation of public relations on the basis of the existing regulatory framework. China has adopted ambitious development concepts in the field of functioning of artificial intelligence and robotics, innovations are being introduced into the public space more actively than in the EU and the USA due to centralized regulation. At the same time, the research concludes that in the process of adopting regulatory legal acts, the state reserves a lot of opportunities for unlimited participation in the activities of private companies and also actively introduces innovations to create a unified system of control over all areas of social life. The concept adopted in the Russian Federation is based on the identification of cross-cutting legal problems, industry-wide and sectoral tasks of legal regulation. The authors come to the conclusion that within this concept, industry-wide tasks do not fully cover the stated problems and, accordingly, are aimed at their partial resolution. In particular, it does not provide for the tasks of ensuring transparency and accountability of artificial intelligence’s algorithms.