Activities of Svenja HAHN related to 2020/2014(INL)
Opinions (1)
OPINION on Civil liability regime for artificial intelligence
Amendments (15)
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas the notion of Artificial Intelligence(AI)-systems comprises a large group of different technologies, including simple statistics, machine learning and deep learning;
Amendment 27 #
E. whereas Artificial Intelligence (certain AI)-systems present significant legal challenges for the existing liability framework and could lead to situations, in which their opacity could make it extremely expensive or even impossible to identify who was in control of the risk associated with the AI-system or which code or input has ultimately caused the harmful operation;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. Whereas the diversity of AI applications and the diverse range of risks the technology poses complicates finding a single solution suitable for the entire spectrum of risks; whereas, in this respect, an approach should be adopted in which experiments, pilots and regulatory sandboxes are used to come up with proportional and evidence-based solutions that address specific situations and sectors where needed;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas the future regulatory framework needs to take into consideration all the interests at stake; whereas careful examination of the consequences of any new regulatory framework on all actors in an impact assessment should be a prerequisite for further legislative steps; whereas the crucial role of SMEs and start-ups especially in the European economy justifies a strictly proportionate approach to enable them to develop and innovate;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Believes that there is no need for a complete revision of the well-functioning liability regimes but that the complexity, connectivity, opacity, vulnerability and autonomy of AI-systems, as well as the multitude of actors involved, nevertheless represent a significant challenge; considers that specific adjustments are necessary to avoid a situation in which persons who suffer harm or whose property is damaged end up without compensation;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that all physical or virtual activities, devices or processes that are driven by AI-systems may technically be the direct or indirect cause of harm or damage, yet are always the result of someone building, deploying or interfering with the systems; notes in this respect that it is not necessary to give legal personality to AI-systems; is of the opinion that the opacity and autonomy of AI-systems could make it in practice very difficult or even impossible to trace back specific harmful actions of the AI-systems to specific human input or to decisions in the design; recalls that, in accordance with widely- accepted liability concepts, one is nevertheless able to circumvent this obstacle by making the persons who create, maintain or control the risk associated with the AI-system, accountable;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Considers that the Product Liability Directive (PLD) has proven to be an effective means of getting compensation for harm triggered by a defective product; hence, notes that it should also be used with regard to civil liability claims against the producer of a defective AI-system, when the AI-system qualifies as a product under that Directive; if lLegislative adjustments to the PLD are necessary, and they should be discussed during a review of that Directive; is of the opinion that, for the purpose of legal certainty throughout the Union, the ‘backend operator’ should fall under the same liability rules as the producer, manufacturer and developer;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Believes that an AI-system presents a high risk when its autonomous operation involves a significant potential to cause harm to one or more persons, in a manner that is random and impossible to predict in advancgoes beyond what can reasonably be expected from its intended use; considers that the significance of the potential depends on the interplay between the severity of possible harm, the likelihood that the risk materializes and the manner in which the AI-system is being used;
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 3
Annex I – part B – recital 3
(3) The rise of Artificial intelligence (AI) however presents a significant challenge for the existing liability frameworks. Using AI-systems in our daily life will lead to situations in which their opacity (“black box” element) and the multitude of actors who intervene in their life-cycle makes it extremely expensive or even impossible to identify who was in control of the risk of using the AI-system in question or which code or input has caused the harmful operation. This difficulty is even compounded by the connectivity between an AI-system and other AI-systems and non-AI-systems, by its dependency on external data, by its vulnerability to cybersecurity breaches as well as by the increasing autonomy of AI- systems triggered by machine-learning and deep- learning capabilities. Besides these complex features and potential vulnerabilities, AI-systems could also be used to cause severe harm, such as compromising our values and freedoms by tracking individuals against their will, by introducing Social Credit Systems or by constructing lethal autonomous weapon systems.
Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 4 a (new)
Annex I – part B – recital 4 a (new)
(4a) An adequate liability regime is also necessary to counterweight the breach of safety rules. However, the envisaged liability needs to take into consideration all interests at stake. A careful examination of the consequences of any new regulatory framework on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and start-ups is a prerequisite for further legislative steps. The crucial role that they play in the European economy justifies a strictly proportionate approach in order to enable them to develop and innovate. On the other hand, the victims of damages caused by AI-systems need to have a right to redress and full compensation of the damages and the harms that they have suffered.
Amendment 188 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 6
Annex I – part B – recital 6
(6) Nevertheless, it should always be clear that whoever creates, maintains, controls or interferes with the AI-system, should be accountable for the harm or damage that the activity, device or process causes. This follows from general and widely accepted liability concepts of justice according to which the person that creates a risk for the public is accountable if that risk materializes. Consequently, the rise of AI-systems does not pose a need for a complete revision of liability rules throughout the Union. Specific adjustments of the existing legislation and very fewwell- assessed and targeted new provisions would be sufficient to accommodate the AI-related challenges.
Amendment 260 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 2 – paragraph 1
Annex I – part B – Article 2 – paragraph 1
1. This Regulation applies on the territory of the Union where a physical or virtual activity, device or process driven by an AI-system has caused harm or damage to the life, health, physical integrity or the property ofand property of a natural or legal person or has caused significant immaterial damage to a natural or legal person.
Amendment 290 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 3 – point f
Annex I – part B – Article 3 – point f
(f) ‘harm or damage’ means an adverse impact affecting the life, health, physical integrity or, property of a natural or legal person, with the exception of non-or causing significant immaterial harm;damage.
Amendment 369 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 7 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Annex I – part B – Article 7 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Civil liability claims, brought in accordance with Article 4(1), concerning damage to property or significant immaterial damage shall be subject to a special limitation period of:
Amendment 374 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point b
Annex I – part B – Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) 30 years from the date on which the operation of the high-risk AI-system that subsequently caused the property or significant immaterial damage took place.