請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/84537完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 吳建昌(Chien-Chang Wu) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Jie-An Chen | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 陳擷安 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-03-19T22:14:50Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2022-10-13 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2022 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2022-09-23 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 一、 英文文獻及資料 1. Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International journal of social research methodology, 8(1), 19-32. 2. Ashok K. Hemal & Mani Menon (2018). Robotics in Genitourinary Surgery. Springer. 3. Ashrafian, H. (2015). Artificial intelligence and robot responsibilities: Innovating beyond rights. Science and engineering ethics, 21(2). 4. Bal, B. S. (2009). An introduction to medical malpractice in the United States. Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 467(2), 339-347. 5. Beavers, Anthony (2013). 'Alan Turing: Mathematical Mechanist'. In Cooper, S. Barry; van Leeuwen, Jan (eds.). Alan Turing: His Work and Impact. Waltham: Elsevier. 6. Benjamens, S., Dhunnoo, P., & Meskó, B. (2020). The state of artificial intelligence-based FDA-approved medical devices and algorithms: an online database. NPJ digital medicine, 3(1), 1-8. 7. Bertolini, A., Salvini, P., Pagliai, T., Morachioli, A., Acerbi, G., Cavallo, F., ... & Dario, P. (2016). On robots and insurance. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8(3), 381-391. 8. Bertolini, A., & Palmerini, E. (2014). Regulating robotics: a challenge for Europe. Legal Affairs Committee, UPCOMING ISSUES OF EU LAW. Brussels: European Parliament. 9. Brożek, B., & Jakubiec, M. (2017). On the legal responsibility of autonomous machines. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 25(3), 293-304. 10. Calo, R. (2015) Robotics and the Lessons of Cyberlaw. California Law Review 103(3): 513-563 11. Chen, J., & Burgess, P. (2019). The boundaries of legal personhood: how spontaneous intelligence can problematise differences between humans, artificial intelligence, companies and animals. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 27(1), 73-92. 12. Coeckelbergh, M. (2015). The tragedy of the master: automation, vulnerability, and distance. Ethics and Information Technology,17(3), 219-229. 13. Colquhoun, H. L., Levac, D., O'Brien, K. K., Straus, S., Tricco, A. C., Perrier, L., ... & Moher, D. (2014). Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 67(12), 1291-1294. 14. Danaher, J. (2016). Robots, law and the retribution gap. Ethics and Information Technology, 18(4), 299-309. 15. DI VIGGIANO, L. (2018). Robotics, Rights And Liabilities Juridical Prospects Of Intelligent Machines. Curentul Juridic, 72(1). 16. Etzioni, A., & Etzioni, O. (2016). Keeping AI legal. Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L., 19, 133. 17. European Commission, Liability for Artificial Intelligence and other emerging digital technologies(2019). 18. Fuzaylova, E. (2018). War Torts, Autonomous Weapon Systems, and Liability:Why a Limited Strict Liability Tort Regime Should Be Implemented. CARDozo L. REv., 40, 1327. 19. Gordon, J. S. (2021). Artificial moral and legal personhood. AI & society, 36(2). 20. Hallevy, G. (2010). Virtual criminal responsibility. Original Law Review, The, 6(1), 6-27. 21. Harnad, Stevan (2008) The Annotation Game: On Turing (1950) on Computing, Machinery and Intelligence Archived 18 October 2017 at the Wayback Machine. In: Epstein, Robert & Peters, Grace (Eds.) Parsing the Turing Test: Philosophical and Methodological Issues in the Quest for the Thinking Computer. Springer. 22. Husain, A. (2017). The sentient machine: the coming age of artificial intelligence. Simon and Schuster. 23. Jamie Bartlett, (2018), How AI could kill democracy, NEW STATESMAN, 17-23. 24. Jessica Kim Cohen (2019). When AI goes Wrong: Doctors, hospitals and vendors could all be on the hook for liability, Modern Healthcare is the property of Crain Communications Inc. 25. Jin, S., & Ye, K. (2007). Nanoparticle‐mediated drug delivery and gene therapy. Biotechnology progress, 23(1), 32-41. 26. Kirchberger, T. (2017). European Union Policy-Making on Robotics and Artificial Intelligence: Selected Issues. Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy, 13(1), 191-214. 2017. 27. Koerner, D. (2019). Doctor Roboto: The No-Man Operation. U. Tol. L. Rev., 51, 125. 28. Kristin Manganello (2018). Defining Personhood in the Age of AI, Thomas Publishing. 29. Kurzweil, R., & Grossman, T. (2005). Fantastic voyage: live long enough to live forever. Rodale. 30. Lucas, J., & Comstock, G. (2015). Do machines have prima facie duties?. In Machine medical ethics (pp. 79-92). Springer, Cham. 31. Lightbourne, J. (2017). Algorithms & fiduciaries: existing and proposed regulatory approaches to artificially intelligent financial planners. Duke LJ, 67, 651. 32. Lima, D. (2017). Could AI agents be held criminally liable: artificial intelligence and the challenges for criminal law. SCL Rev., 69, 677. 33. Matthias, A. (2004). The Responsibility Gap: Ascribing Responsibility for the Actions of Learning Automata. Ethics and Information Technology 6(3): 175-183. 34. Nyholm, S. (2018). Attributing agency to automated systems: Reflections on human–robot collaborations and responsibility-loci. Science and engineering ethics, 24(4), 1201-1219. 35. Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.04(5) (Am. Law Inst. 2006) 36. Roe, M. (2019). Who's Driving That Car: An Analysis of Regulatory and Potential Liability Frameworks for Driverless Cars. BCL Rev., 60, 317. 37. Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2005). AI a modern approach. Learning, 2(3), 4. 38. Solaiman, S. M. (2017). Legal personality of robots, corporations, idols and chimpanzees: a quest for legitimacy. Artificial intelligence and law, 25(2), 155-179. 39. Subramanian, Ramesh (2017)' Emergent AI, Social Robots and the Law: Security, Privacy and Policy Issues,' Journal of International, Technology and Information Management, 26(3). 40. Sullivan, H. R., & Schweikart, S. J. (2019). Are current tort liability doctrines adequate for addressing injury caused by AI?. AMA journal of ethics, 21(2), 160-166. 41. Subramanian, Ramesh (2017)' Emergent AI, Social Robots and the Law: Security, Privacy and Policy Issues,' Journal of International, Technology and Information Management, 26(3). 42. Szentgáli-Tóth, B. A. (2021). The Source of Unexplored Opportunities or an Unpredictable Risk Factor?. PUBLIC GOVERNANCE ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE LAW REVIEW IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND CENTRAL EASTERN EUROPE, 6(2). 43. Tanguy Feuillet (2019). Humans and robots: How to create a better future together?, PM World Journal, Vol. VIII, Issue V – June 2019. 44. The JURI Committee (2016). Civil Law Rules on Robotics Study. 45. Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., ... & Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of internal medicine, 169(7). 46. Vladeck, D. C. (2014). Machines without principals: liability rules and artificial intelligence. Wash. L. Rev., 89, 117. 47. Westbrook, C. W. (2017). The Google made me do it: the complexity of criminal liability in the age of autonomous vehicles. Mich. St. L. Rev., 97. 48. Wettig, S., & Zehender, E. (2004). A legal analysis of human and electronic agents. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 12(1), 111-135. 二、 中文文獻及資料 1. 王志誠. (2012). 法人格獨立原則之適用及界限. 2. 王澤鑑. (2012). 人格權法. 台北: 三民. 3. 王一旅. (2021). 深度學習 AI 醫療民事侵權責任之探討-以美國、歐盟及我國法治為中心. 輔仁法學,第 61 期. 4. 行政院(2018),行政院重要政策:台灣的「AI 小國大戰略」,(https://www.ey.gov.tw/Page/5A8A0CB5B41DA11E/50a08776-e33a-4be2-a07c-a6e523f5031b) 5. 吳建昌、王昱涵. (2021). 醫師運用醫療人工智慧時之說明義務-以病人自主、醫療決策及醫療人工智慧發展為中心. 月旦民商法雜誌. 第 74 期. 6. 吳佳琳. (2020). 初探人工智慧的民事法律責任-從歐洲議會機器人民事法律規範建議開展. 科技法律透析, 32(1). 7. 張麗卿. (2021). 人工智慧醫療刑事責任風險之探討. 輔仁法學. 第 62 期. 8. 國家實驗研究院 EBSCOhost 系統簡介(https://concert.stpi.narl.org.tw/database/12) 9. 饒瑞正.(2018). 船舶所有權範圍. 月旦法學教室. 第 185 期. 10. 楊岳平. (2021). 人工智慧的法律責任與法人格設計——法律經濟分析的觀點. 公共性與 AI 論壇(四), 臺灣人工智慧行動網.(https://ai.iias.sinica.edu.tw/legal-responsibility-and-personality-of-ai-minutes/) | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/84537 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 近年來隨著科技的進步,相關演算軟體及電腦硬體功能提升,藉由大數據的大量演算以及機器學習的技術,人工智慧所仰賴的運算能力也得到大幅進步,可以運用到許多領域。行政院更以台灣的「AI 小國大戰略」的戰略思維,將人工智慧選定為下世代的發展主軸。人工智慧技術快速進展,帶給人類社會許多的好處與便利,高階人工智慧係以模仿人類行為及思考方式的過程,甚至可能發展至具備自主思考及行動的程度。人工智慧與人類間的關係及應用可能性,可能在倫理規範、法律制度、政策執行上帶來風險與衝擊。我們應該去思考如何正確看待人工智慧,特別是當人工智慧在運作過程造成傷害時,應該明確釐清出造成傷害的主體為何。 本研究論文以擬似範疇界定文獻回顧之研究方法(Quasi Scoping Review),加以探討是否應賦予人工智慧法律人格?以及醫療人工智慧造成傷害的民事責任,應如何分擔?法律人格與民事責任承擔是否有關?基於這些探討,期能對於人工智慧在醫療領域發展所帶來的民事責任的問題,能以更為建設性、具體方式來解決。 筆者認為應賦予強人工智慧類似公司之法律人格,並設立強人工智慧之監管單位,強制要求人工智慧進行註冊;弱人工智慧之責任則由人類承擔。雖然賦予人工智慧一個法律人格的法律主體地位,並不表示人類可以完全將所有責任歸責於人工智慧;惟當賦予其法律人格的法律主體地位時,將可更為明確釐清人工智慧的相關法律紛爭,也能降低人工智慧對人類社會的衝擊,而有助於更為廣泛地運用。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | As science and technology makes progress, functions of computing algorithm software and computer software also has improved a lot. Through adopting the technology of big data and machine learning, the computing power of artificial intelligence (AI) also builds up quickly. For the time being, AI has been applied in many fields. The Executive Yuan in Taiwan has chosen artificial intelligence as the development direction of our next generation with the strategic thinking of Taiwan's 'AI Small Economy, Smart Strategy'. The development of AI will bring about many benefits and convenience for human society. The most advanced AI might even imitate human thought process and behavior to reach the extent that we wonder whether AI has autonomy. The relationship of AI and human beings and AI’s applications will lead to risks and challenges in ethical norms, legal institutions and policy implementations. Using the method of Quasi Scoping Review, this thesis explores the main arguments current literature makes regarding the following three issues: Whether we should recognize AI’s legal personhood, and if yes, how? How we should attribute civil responsibility/liability for the harm caused by AI? What is the relationship between legal personhood and civil responsibility/liability? It is hoped that the results might render more constructive and specific recommendation to resolve the civil responsibility/liability issues in the harms caused by medical AI. I think strong artificial intelligence should be endowed with the legal personality similar to that of a company, and a supervision unit of strong artificial intelligence should be set up to force artificial intelligence to register; The responsibility of weak artificial intelligence is borne by human beings. Although giving artificial intelligence a legal subject status of personality right does not mean that human beings can completely attribute all responsibilities to artificial intelligence; However, when the person's personality right is given the legal subject status, the legal disputes related to artificial intelligence can be more clearly clarified, and the impact of artificial intelligence on human society can be reduced, which is conducive to its wider application. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2023-03-19T22:14:50Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-2109202214174300.pdf: 1643987 bytes, checksum: 311a802efcf6da6673d702a5990e75a6 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2022 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書 ............................................................................................................ I 誌謝 ..................................................................................................................................................... II 中文摘要 ............................................................................................................................................ IV ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................ V 目錄 .................................................................................................................................................. VII 圖目錄 ................................................................................................................................................ IX 表目錄 ................................................................................................................................................. X 第一章 緒論 ........................................................................................................................................ 1 第一節 研究背景與研究動機 ........................................................................................................ 1 第二節 研究目的及研究問題 ........................................................................................................ 8 第三節 研究方法 ............................................................................................................................ 9 第四節 論文架構 .......................................................................................................................... 10 第二章 範疇界定文獻回顧(Scoping Review)之研究分析 ............................................................. 12 第一節 範疇界定文獻回顧(Scoping Review)之目的 ................................................................. 14 第二節 範疇界定文獻回顧(Scoping Review)之研究步驟 ......................................................... 16 第三節 本論文採用擬似範疇界定文獻回顧(Scoping Review)之研究步驟 ........................... 21 第三章 擬似範疇界定文獻回顧(Scoping Review)之成果 ............................................................. 31 第一節 人工智慧之法律人格 ...................................................................................................... 31 第二節 人工智慧之歸責 .............................................................................................................. 41 第四章 人工智慧之法律人格與民事責任之探討 .......................................................................... 93 第一節 人工智慧法律人格之探討 .............................................................................................. 93 第二節 人工智慧民事責任之探討 ............................................................................................ 107 第五章 結論 .................................................................................................................................... 112 參考文獻 .......................................................................................................................................... 116 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 民事責任 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 人工智慧 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 法律人格 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 歸責 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Civil Liability | en |
| dc.subject | Artificial Intelligence | en |
| dc.subject | Legal Personhood | en |
| dc.subject | Attribute | en |
| dc.subject | Civil Responsibility | en |
| dc.title | 人工智慧應用於醫療領域之法律人格及民事歸責之探討 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | The research on the personhood and responsibility of artificial intelligence in the medical field | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 110-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.author-orcid | 0000-0003-3545-7839 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 邱文聰(Wen-Tsong Chiou),黃詩淳 (Sieh-chuen Huang) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 人工智慧,法律人格,歸責,民事責任, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Artificial Intelligence,Legal Personhood,Attribute,Civil Responsibility,Civil Liability, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 122 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202203721 | |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(限校園內公開) | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2022-09-23 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 醫學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 醫學教育暨生醫倫理研究所 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.embargo-lift | 2022-10-13 | - |
| 顯示於系所單位: | 醫學教育暨生醫倫理學科所 | |
文件中的檔案:
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| U0001-2109202214174300.pdf 授權僅限NTU校內IP使用(校園外請利用VPN校外連線服務) | 1.61 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。
