Artificial Intelligence Crime within the Concept of Society 5.0: Challenges and Opportunities for Acknowledgment of Artificial Intelligence in Indonesian Criminal Legal System

Abstract

This research explores the challenges and opportunities for the recognition of Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) as a new legal subject in the Indonesian Criminal Legal System within the concept of Society 5.0. There have been circulating debates concerning the possibility of approving A.I is a novel legal subject, as it does not possess independent consciousness; its existence and action are determined by another entity, that is, the programmer or developer of that A.I. Hence, an A.I cannot be imposed with legal responsibilities. However, due to the ever-growing nature of human civilization, it is probably safe to argue that the future of A.I. is still unclear. A.I. might execute an order which opposes that of its creator, for instance, a crime. A question then may arise following this theory: if an A.I. behaves in contrast to its creator’s intention, can it be accepted that such A.I. has developed its own mind, fully separated from the human entity? Then, on that account, can the A.I. be inflicted with criminal responsibility? Consequently, if the answer is positive, what should be changed or adjusted in the Indonesian Criminal Legal System so as to incorporate such liability of A.I.? Finally, what would be the plausible sanction that can be imposed on an A.I. committing a crime? Will such kind of sanction be sufficient and suitable for society’s standards? This paper will try to present elaborate discussions regarding these concerns.

Criminal Liability about the Use of Artificial Intelligence: Investigating the Actus Reus Element of AI-driven Technology

“…Owners and developers of artificial intelligence systems would be held accountable for the behaviours of their creations, regardless of whether the AI was intended to cause harm. 25 . However, this technique raises concerns regarding how much money should be awarded as damages and about the plan's potential unintended consequences, i.e.…”

“…Fordham L. Rev. 88 (2019): 439 25. Bartneck, Christoph, Christoph Lütge, Alan Wagner, and Sean Welsh.…”