SUN’IY INTELLEKTDAN JINOIY MAQSADDA FOYDALANISHNING JINOYAT-HUQUQIY TAVSIFI, IJTIMOIY-HUQUQIY MOHIYATI
##article.subject##:
sun’iy intellekt, jinoyat tarkibi, jinoyat sodir etish usuli, ayb shakli, algoritmik javobgarlik, riskka asoslangan yondashuv, transmilliy jinoyatlar, algoritmik shaffoflik, kiberjinoyatchilik##article.abstract##
Mazkur maqolada sun’iy intellekt texnologiyalaridan jinoiy maqsadlarda foydalanishning jinoyat-huquqiy tavsifi va uning ijtimoiy-huquqiy mohiyati kompleks ravishda tahlil qilingan. Tadqiqotda sun’iy intellekt jinoyat tarkibining mustaqil elementi sifatida emas, balki jinoyat sodir etish vositasi yoki usuli sifatida namoyon bo‘lishi ilmiy jihatdan asoslab berilgan. Muallif sun’iy intellekt orqali sodir etiladigan qilmishlarda jinoyat tarkibining obyektiv va subyektiv belgilari, ayniqsa “qilish usuli”, ayb shakli hamda sabab-oqibat bog‘lanishini aniqlash masalalari murakkablashishini ko‘rsatadi. Shu bilan birga, maqolada generativ sun’iy intellekt, deepfake texnologiyalari, algoritmik qaror qabul qilish tizimlari va avtomatlashtirilgan axborot vositalari jinoyatchilikning yangi shakllarini yuzaga keltirayotgani ta’kidlanadi. Ushbu jarayon jinoyat huquqida texnologik neytrallik prinsipini saqlagan holda, mavjud jinoyat tarkiblarini zamonaviy raqamli muhit sharoitiga mos ravishda talqin qilish zaruratini yuzaga keltiradi. Tadqiqotda sun’iy intellekt bilan bog‘liq javobgarlikni belgilashda “risk-based approach”, “effective control” hamda algoritmik shaffoflik konsepsiyalarining ahamiyati tahlil qilingan. Shuningdek, transmilliy xususiyatga ega bo‘lgan sun’iy intellekt orqali sodir etiladigan jinoyatlar yurisdiksiya, ekstraditsiya va xalqaro hamkorlik masalalarini murakkablashtirishi asoslangan. Muallif jinoiy javobgarlikni takomillashtirish bo‘yicha normativ takliflar ishlab chiqqan bo‘lib, yuqori xavfli sun’iy intellekt tizimlari uchun majburiy risk baholash, algoritmik audit, inson nazorati mexanizmini mustahkamlash hamda maxsus professional javobgarlik standartlarini joriy etish zarurligini ilgari suradi. Xulosa sifatida, sun’iy intellekt fenomeni jinoyat huquqining konseptual asoslarini inkor etmasdan, ularni zamonaviylashtirishni talab etishi ta’kidlanadi.
Библиографические ссылки
Center for AI Crime. (2023). About AI Crimes. https://clck.ru/3Gpr34
Markoff, J. (2016, October 23). As Artificial Intelligence Evolves, So Does Its Criminal Potential. The New York Times. https://clck.ru/3Gpr5Z
Sukhodolov, A., Bychkov, A., & Bychkova, A. (2020). Criminal Policy for Crimes Committed Using Artificial Intelligence Technologies: State, Problems, Prospects. Journal of Siberian Federal University, 13(1), 116–122. https://doi.org/10.17516/1997-1370-0542
Scherer, M. U. (2015). Regulating Artificial Intelligence Systems: Risks, Challenges, Competencies, and Strategies. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 29(2), 353. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2609777
Zhao, S. (2024). Principle of Criminal Imputation for Negligence Crime Involving Artificial Intelligence. Springer Nature. https://10.1007/978-981-97-0722-5
Bhatt, N., & Bhatt, J. (2023). Towards a Novel Eclectic Framework for Administering Artificial Intelligence Technologies: A Proposed ‘PEEC’ Doctrine. EPRA International Journal of Research and Development (IJRD), 8(9), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.11434.18888
Luciano Floridi & Josh Cowls, “A Unified Framework of Five Principles for AI in Society,” Harvard Data Science Review 1, no. 1 (2019).
John Danaher, “Robots, Law and the Retribution Gap,” Ethics and Information Technology 18 (2016): 299–309.
Mireille Hildebrandt, Smart Technologies and the End(s) of Law: Novel Entanglements of Law and Technology (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2015), 134–152.
Andrew Ashworth & Jeremy Horder, Principles of Criminal Law, 7th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 152–165.
Kai Ambos, Treatise on International Criminal Law. Volume I: Foundations and General Part (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 88–104.
Karen Yeung, “Algorithmic Regulation: A Critical Interrogation,” Regulation & Governance 12, no. 4 (2018): 505–523.
