人工智能产品缺陷司法认定标准之研究

Research on the judicialidentification standard of artificial intelligence product defect

人工智能产品相较于普通产品最大区别在于其自主性,一方面体现在人工智能产品运作方式更具复杂性,它们能够自主决策与自主行为,处于"感知—分析—行动"模式,其运行过程为"黑箱"操作,难以为人类所探究;另一方面体现在产品侵权的致害主体更具多元性,除了作为传统产品侵权主体的生产者与销售者外,还包括研发者,甚至人工智能产品本身。基于此,当前产品缺陷的司法认定存在困境。一是现有判断标准在人工智能产品视域下缺乏适应性,由于《产品质量法》中"不合理标准"的抽象性、复杂性与《人工智能标准化白皮书(2018版)》中"技术标准"的应急性、不确定性,现有标准的使用难以解决人工智能产品缺陷的司法认定问题;二是我国现有立法未将产品缺陷进行类型化认定,而仅对产品进行笼统的缺陷判断,在人工智能这一多元责任主体与多样未知风险的领域,该种产品缺陷的司法认定模式在适用时更为捉襟见肘。为将人工智能产品缺陷的司法实践规范化,在产品责任框架下应将缺陷划分为设计缺陷、制造缺陷、警示缺陷及跟踪观察缺陷,这不仅有利于契合人工智能产品的归责原则,也与产品侵权责任各要素相对应。人工智能产品缺陷司法认定标准应与有关主体应履行的义务相结合。具体而言,人工智能产品设计缺陷的责任主体为设计研发者,其应当履行安全保障、性能平衡、全面测试等义务,该缺陷采用"风险—效用"的司法认定规则。制造缺陷的责任主体为制造者,其应当履行配合设计预期效果与按照设计方案进行制造的义务,该缺陷采用"对预期设计偏离"的司法认定标准。警示缺陷的责任主体为制造者、销售者,警示义务应当达到警示内容的充分性、警示时间的更迭性与警示语言的简明醒目性等要求,该缺陷采用"合理充分"的司法认定标准。跟踪观察缺陷的责任主体为设计研发者、制造者与销售者,跟踪观察不仅要求畅通产品的反馈渠道,也要积极定期对产品进行监察,更要及时对问题产品作出反应,该缺陷采用"个案认定,综合判断"的司法认定原则。

The biggest difference between artificial intelligence products and ordinary products is their autonomy.On the one hand, the operation mode of artificial intelligence products is more complicated.They can make independent decisions and act independently, and are in the mode of “perception-analysis-action”.Their operation process is a “black box”,which is difficult to be explored by human beings.On the other hand, the subject of product infringement is more diversified.In addition to the producers and sellers who are the subject of traditional product infringement, they also include the researchers and even the artificial intelligence products themselves.Based on this, the current judicial identification of product defects is difficult.First, the existing judgment criteria lack adaptability in the field of artificial intelligence products.Due to the abstractness and complexity of the “unreasonable standards” in the Product Quality Law and the urgency and uncertainty of the “technical standards” in the White Paper on Artificial Intelligence Standardization(2018 Edition),the use of existing standards is difficult to solve the problem of judicial identification of artificial intelligence product defects.Second, the existing legislation in China does not categorize product defects, but only makes general judgment on product defects.In the field of artificial intelligence, which is a subject of multi-subject responsibility and a variety of unknown risks, the judicial identification mode of product defects is more inadequate in application.In order to standardize the judicial practice of artificial intelligence product defects, defects should be divided into design defects, manufacturing defects, warning defects and tracking observation defects under the framework of product liability, which is not only conducive to applying the attribution principle of artificial intelligence products, but also corresponding to the elements of product tort liability.The judicial identification standard of artificial intelligence product defects should be combined with the obligations of relevant subjects.Specifically, the developers shall be responsible for the design defects of artificial intelligence products, and they shall fulfill the obligations of safety guarantee, performance balance and comprehensive testing.The judicial identification rule of “risk-utility” shall be adopted for the defects.The liability subject of manufacturing defect is the manufacturer, who should fulfill the obligation of cooperating with the expected design effect and manufacturing according to the design scheme.The judicial identification standard of “deviation from the expected design” shall be adopted for this defect.The subject of responsibility for warning defect is the manufacturer and seller, and the warning obligation should meet the requirements of the adequacy of warning content, the change of warning time and the conciseness and striking of warning language, etc.,and the judicial identification standard of “reasonable and sufficient” should be adopted for the defect.The subject of responsibility for tracking and observing defects is the developer, manufacturer and seller.Tracking and observing not only requires unimpeded product feedback channels, but also requires active and regular supervision of products, and more importantly, timely response to the problem products.The judicial identification principle of “case identification and comprehensive judgment” should be adopted for this defect.