首页|生成式人工智能的刑法规制问题研究

生成式人工智能的刑法规制问题研究

扫码查看
利用生成式人工智能实施诈骗等犯罪的定性较为复杂,实现生成式人工智能提供者与使用者的相关行为合理的刑法规制需要区别对待.针对生成式人工智能提供者,因无法适用《刑法》第285条第3款、第286条之一以及第287条之二,合适的做法是依据新过失论对其适用过失责任,同时通过立法明确生成式人工智能提供者的责任依据;针对生成式人工智能的使用者,因《刑法》第253条之一无法评价"合法获取、非法使用"的情形,使用者不构成侵犯公民个人信息罪,但其使用行为可构成非法利用信息网络罪,若构成非法利用信息网络罪与诈骗罪的牵连,应依据处罚较重的罪名定罪处罚.
Research on Criminal Law Regulation of Generative Artificial Intelligence
The qualitative analysis of crimes such as fraud committed using generative artificial intelligence is relatively complex,and achieving reasonable criminal law regulations for the relevant behaviors of generative artificial intelligence providers and users needs to be treated differently.For generative artificial intelligence providers,currently Article 285(3),Article 286-1,and Article 287-2 of the Criminal Law cannot be applied.The appropriate approach is to apply fault liability to them based on the new fault theory,and at the same time,clarify the basis of responsibility for generative artificial intelligence providers through legislation.For users of generative artificial intelligence,due to Article 253 of the Criminal Law,it is not possible to evaluate the situation of"legitimate acquisition and illegal use".Users do not constitute the crime of infringing on citizens'personal information,but their use behavior can constitute the crime of illegal use of information networks.If it constitutes an association between the crime of illegal use of information networks and the crime of fraud,they should be convicted and punished basing on the heavier punishment.

generative artificial intelligenceface changing scamsnegligencecriminal liability of the providercriminal liability of users

袁彬、薛力铭

展开 >

北京师范大学刑事法律科学研究院,北京 100875

北京师范大学法学院,北京 100875

生成式人工智能 "换脸"诈骗 过失 提供者刑事责任 使用者刑事责任

2024

河北法学
河北政法职业学院 河北省法学会

河北法学

CHSSCD北大核心
影响因子:0.992
ISSN:1002-3933
年,卷(期):2024.42(2)
  • 1
  • 19