Junjun Luo
Law School, Guizhou University of Finance and Economics, Guiyang 550031, Guizhou, China.
*Corresponding author: Junjun Luo
Abstract
With the ongoing exploration of artificial intelligence research and development, traditional AI research has shifted towards generative artificial intelligence. This transition has given rise to various legal and ethical issues associated with generative AI. At its core, generative AI is fundamentally a large language model that relies on extensive algorithms and training data to produce results. While its infrastructure remains centered around the language model, it differs significantly from previous search engine technologies. Therefore, ChatGPT generative artificial intelligence is still a "tool", which cannot independently generate consciousness and does not have the ability to identify and control. The "human-like" characteristics shown by ChatGPT generative artificial intelligence in the process of use cannot be used as the basis for judgment that it should become the subject of criminal responsibility. The research on the relevant legal issues of ChatGPT generative artificial intelligence should be based on the framework of China's existing legal system.
References
[1] Zhao Zhaoyang, Zhu Guibo, Wang Jinqiao. ChatGPT brings inspiration to language large model and new development ideas of multimodal large model. Data analysis and knowledge discovery. 2023;7(03):26-35.
[2] Liu Xianquan, Fang Huiying. Prospective thinking on Criminal law related to artificial intelligence. Journal of Anhui University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition). 2019;43(01):108-117.
[3] Li Zhenlin, Pan Xinyuan. Dilemma and response of criminal law protection of data security in the context of generative artificial intelligence: from the perspective of ChatGPT. Crime Research. 2023;(02):25-33.
[4] Li Xiang, Kuang Yin. Thoughts on the Criminal law of CHATGPT-like artificial intelligence and its products. Journal of Guizhou Normal University (Social Science Edition). 2023;(04):78-91.
[5] Wang Yingming, Wang Huaijun. Image brain and Empathy: the ethical risk minimization and correction of ChatGPT. Theoretical Guide. 2023;(07):108-113.
[6] Jiang Su. Artificial Intelligence as subject of Criminal Responsibility: Evidence based on Criminal Law Philosophy. Legal and Social Development. 2021;27(03):111-127.
[7] Liu Xianquan. Criminal Risk and Criminal Law Response in the era of Artificial Intelligence. Legal and Business Research. 2018;35(01):3-11.
[8] Zhu Guanghui, Wang Xiwen. Operation mode, key technology and future prospect of ChatGPT. Journal of Xinjiang Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition). 2023;44(04):113-122.
[9] Engels. Anti-Duhring. 1970. Pp. 32, 83-84, 59, 139.
[10] Bao Yanwei, Ren Fuji. Research progress of human brain information processing and brain-like intelligence. Science and Technology Review. 2023;41(09):6-16.
[11] Zhang Lixin, Li Meijin. Analysis of criminal responsibility ability based on Criminal Psychological Analysis. Journal of People's Public Security University of China (Social Science Edition). 2017;33(02):17-24.
[12] Zhang Mingkai. Criminal Law (Part 1). Law Press; 2021.
How to cite this paper
ChatGPT Class Generative Artificial Intelligence Criminal Subject Problem Thinking
How to cite this paper: Junjun Luo. (2024) ChatGPT Class Generative Artificial Intelligence Criminal Subject Problem Thinking. Advances in Computer and Communication, 5(4), 228-232.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26855/acc.2024.10.005