People seem to think that from a technical point of view, the legal effect of machine behavior should be affirmed when it is close to or even difficult to distinguish from human beings.However, limited to the traditional theories and the current laws, only natural persons, legal persons and other organizations are listed as legal subjects, thus the voice advocating recognition of the legal subject qualification of artificial intelligence has become the mainstream.
In this debate, there will always be a list of conditions, such as the free will and autonomy of artificial intelligence.The general view is that only when an artificial intelligence meets these conditions can it be classified as a real cognitive actor equal to human beings.However, up to now, even in the research field of artificial intelligence, inside has not formed a widely acceptable definition, "which computer program can be called artificial intelligence cannot be summarized as a whole".
Simply judging whether a machine "looks like a person" or "behaves like a person" as a standard element to judge whether it can obtain the status of legal subject is not only easy to lead to poor operability due to vague concepts, but also may fall into the quagmire of inconsistent understanding of law and science and technology.The theoretical standard of cognitive state of artificial intelligence should indeed be discussed as a problem, but it cannot provide a very suitable basis for examining the legal subject qualification of artificial intelligence. The main reason is that these standards are too abstract.
Machines can only be designed to obey the law, but they cannot understand it.Although almost all researches on artificial intelligence will refer to the "Three Laws of Robotics" of Isaac Asimov, an American scientist and science fiction writer.But objectively speaking, the guiding object of this set of principles is still human beings, not machines.Because machines only act according to algorithms, legal concepts and logical settings are related to human beings. It can be said that only human beings can understand the meaning of rights and responsibilities. Machines do not have this understanding ability. They are not active in the discipline of hermeneutics, and they will never be.
Btestsky was established in 2006, and established a laboratory quality management system in accordance with the regulations for the establishment of national laboratories. After more than one year of operation, the laboratory was officially recognized as a national testing laboratory in September 2010 after on-site review by the China National Accreditation Service for Conformity Assessment Expert Group.