Generative AI service providers may incite or assist users in committing crimes through their AI programs,which raises questions about the extent to which they should be held accountable.Generally,providing such services may at most lead to accomplice liability for the user's crimes,and the breach of duty of care does not apply to determining accomplice liability.Relying on intent to set the boundaries of punishment could lead to an unjustified expansion of liability,and the criteria suggested by neutral accomplice theories are often problem-atic.Instead,the criminal liability of providing generative AI services should be evaluated through the lens of"balancing conflicting legitimate interests,"an extra-legal ground for excluding unlawfulness:First,the conduct must promote or maintain legitimate interests;second,the legitimate interests promoted by the conduct must con-flict with the legal interests it harms;and third,the legitimate interests promoted by the conduct must be no less than the legal interests it harms.Even if there is causality between the AI services and the principal offender's unlawful conduct,the provider's conduct should not be deemed unlawful as long as it meets the above conditions.
万方数据