Technologies of “Artificial Intelligence”: Problems of Qualification and Legal Regime

Abstract

Based on the civil law methodology, the paper analyzes the concept, legal nature andlegal regime of the technology of artificial intelligence. The subjects discussed include:the civil law doctrine; provisions of the national and international law; enforcementpractices. The study purports to theoretically justify the legal nature and legal regime of“artificial intelligence”. In view of the above subject and purpose, the paper has reliedon the comparative legal and structural system methods as well as simulation method.In particular, the comparative legal method has allowed to explore specific elementsof “artificial intelligence” in the context of the national and international regulationof relevant relationships. The use of this method has also allowed to justify the legalregime applicable to technologies of “artificial intelligence” as intellectual assets. Theuse of the structural system method has allowed to substantiate the legal nature of AIand to identify its structural elements and the scope of application (information andhealth care services; development and use of robotic devices in the oil and gas sector;apartment buildings design etc.). The simulation method has provided an insight intothe correlation between the concepts of “artificial intelligence” and “AI implementationform”, and helped to propose a solution to the issue of legitimacy of sharing theexclusive right to AI. As a methodological peculiarity, the study combines the theoreticaland empirical levels of cognition. The said combination of methods has allowed tolook at the problems of qualification and legal regime in the context of controversialdoctrinal and practical approaches. The study has found that the “artificial intelligence”technology, being a complex technical product, is essentially an intellectual asset(property). It was established that the doctrinal approaches qualifying AI technologiesas a (“digital”) person at law or a physical thing were unfounded. The paper argues infavor of recognizing the exclusive right to the AI technology as an intellectual asset.