The Possibility and Necessity of the Human-Centered AI in Legal Theory and Practice

Objective: the paper aims to define the problems juridical theory and practice face with the progress of AI technologies in everyday life and correlate these problems with the human-centered approach to exploring artificial intelligence (Human-Centered AI).

Methods: the research  critically analyzes  the relevant literature from various disciplines: jurisprudence, sociology, philosophy, and computer sciences.

Results: the article articulates the prospects and problems the legal system confronts with the advancement of digital technologies in general and the tools of AI specifically. The identified problems are correlated with the provisions of the human-centered approach to AI. The authors acknowledge the necessity for AI inventors, as well as the owners of companies participating in the race to develop artificial intelligence technologies, to place humans, not machines, into the focus of attention as a primary value. In particular, special effort should be directed towards collecting and analyzing high-quality data for the organization of artificial intelligence tools development, taking into account that nowadays, the tools of AI are as practical as the data on which they are trained are effective.

The authors formulate three principles of human-centered AI for the legal sphere: 1) a human as a necessary link in the chain of making and executing legal decisions; 2) the need to regulate artificial intelligence at the international law level; 3) formulating “a taboo” for introducing the artificial intelligence technologies.

Scientific novelty: the article manifests one of the first attempts in the Russianlanguage scientific literature to outline the prospects of developing humancentered AI methodology in jurisprudence. Based on an analysis of special literature, the authors formulate three principles of including artificial intelligence into juridical theory and practice according to the assumptions of a human-centered approach to AI.

Practical significance: the principles and arguments the article advances can be helpful in the legal regulation of artificial intelligence technologies and their harmonious inclusion into legal practices.

1. Andreev, V. K., Laptev, V. A., & Chucha S. Yu. (2020). Artificial intelligence in the system of electronic justice by consideration of corporate disputes. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law, 11(1), 19–34. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2020.102

2. Baturin, Yu. M., & Polubinskaya, S. V. (2022). Artificial intelligence: legal status or legal regime? Gosudarstvoiparvo, 10, 141. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.31857/s102694520022606-7

3. Bykov, A. V., & Narskaya, A. I. (2022). Law, Morality, and Machine Learning: Judges’ Perspective on the Essence of Justice and the Prospects of Its Robotization. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes Journal (Public Opinion Monitoring), 5, 278–298. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2022.5.2137

4. Dreyfus, H. (1978). What computers can’t do: A critique of artificial reason. Moscow: Progress. (In Russ.).

5. Efimova, L., Mikheeva, I., & Chub, D. (2020). Comparative Analysis of Doctrinal Concepts of Legal Regulating Smart Contracts in Russia and Foreign States. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 4, 78–105. (In Russ.).

6. Esposito, E. (2017). Artificial Communication? The Production of Contingency by Algorithms. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 46(4), 249–265. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsoz-2017-1014

7. Etzioni, A., & Etzioni, O. (2017). Should Artificial Intelligence Be Regulated? Issues in Science and Technology, 33(4), 32–36.

8. Fink, M., & Finck, M. (2022). Reasoned A(I) administration: explanation requirements in EU law and the automation of public administration. European Law Review, 47(3), 376–392.

9. Ford, K. M., Hayes, P. J., Glymour, C., & Allen, J. (2015). Cognitive Orthoses: Toward Human-Centered AI. AI Magazine, 36(4), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v36i4.2629

10. Gorokhova, S. S. (2021). Artificial intelligence: an instrument ensuring cybersecurity of the financial sphere or a cyber threat to banks? Banking Law, 1, 35–46. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18572/1812-3945-20211-35-46

11. Greger, R. (2017). Judge as an Internet Surfer. Identification of the Circumstances of the Case on the Internet. Herald of Civil Procedure, 7(4), 161–173. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24031/2226-0781-2017-7-4-161-173

12. Harvey, D. (2014). Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

13. Hickman, E., & Petrin, M. (2021). Trustworthy AI and Corporate Governance: The EU’s Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence from a Company Law Perspective. European Business Organization Law Review, 22, 593–625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40804-021-00224-0

14. International Committee of the Red Cross (2020). Artificial intelligence and machine learning in armed conflict: A human-centred approach. International Review of the Red Cross, 102(913), 463–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40804-021-00224-0

15. Klein, N. (2007). The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. New York: Henry Holt.

16. Lee, J.-A., Hilty, R. M, & Liu, K.-C. (Eds.). (2021). Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

17. Lee, K.-F. (2019). AI Superpowers: China, Silicon Valley and the new world order. Moscow: Mann, Ivanov i Ferber. (In Russ.).

18. Lessig, L. (2019). Artificial intelligence is going to oust a wide circle of lawyers. Zakon, 5, 8–30. (In Russ.).

19. Mazhorina, M. (2020). Cyberplace and Methodology of International Private Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2, 230–253. (In Russ.).

20. Oravec, J. A. (2022). The emergence of “truth machines”? Artificial intelligence approaches to lie detection. Ethics and Information Technology, 24, 6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-022-09621-6

21. O’Neil, C. (2018). Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. Moscow: AST. (In Russ.).

22. Panchenko, V. Yu. (2012). Information availability of legal assistance: ideal and real state. Agrarnoye i zemelnoye parvo, 11(95), 95–102. (In Russ.).

23. Rezaev, A. V. (2021). Twelve Theses on Artificial Intelligence and Artificial Sociality. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes, 1, 20–30. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2021.1.1894

24. Rezaev, A. V. & Tregubova, N. D. (2019). Artificial intelligence, On-line Culture, Artificial Sociality: Definition of the Terms. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes, 6, 35–47. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2019.6.03

25. Rudenko, N. (2020). Sociotechnical barriers to developing autonomous vehicles in Russia. In L. Zemnukhova, K. Glazkov, O. Logunova, A. Maksimova, D. Sivkov, & N. Rudenko, The Adventures of Technologies: Digitalization Barriers in Russia (17–70). Moscow – Saint Petersburg: FNISTS RAN. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.31119/9785-89697-339-3

26. Rusakova, E. (2020). The integration of modern digital technologies to the legal proceedings of People’s Republic of China and Singapore, Gosudarstvo i parvo, 9, 102. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.31857/s102694520011323-6

27. Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2007). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (2d ed.). Moscow: Vilyams. (InRuss.).

28. Shneiderman, B. (2021). Human-centered AI. Issues in Science and Technology, 37(2), 56–61.

29. Stepanov, O., Pechegin, D., & Diakonova, M. (2021). Towards the Issue of Digitalization of Judicial Activities. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 5, 4–23. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17323/2072-8166.2021.5.4.23

30. Talapina, E. V. (2021). Artificial intelligence and legal expertise in public administration. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law, 12(4), 865–881. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2021.404

31. Talapina, E. V. (2022). The right to informational self-determination: on the edge of public and private. Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 15(5), 24–43. (In Russ.).

32. Tsvetkov, Yu. A. (2021). Artificial Intelligence in Justice. Zakon, 4, 91–107. (In Russ.).

33. Ulnicane, I. (2022). Artificial Intelligence in the European Union: policy, ethics and regulation. In T. Hoerber, I. Cabras, G. Weber (Eds.). Routledge Handbook of European Integrations (pp. 254–269). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429262081-19

34. Utekhin, I. (2019). Search and Interfaces for Search. Laboratorium: Russian Review of Social Research, 11(1), 152–165. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.25285/2078-1938-2019-11-1-152-165

35. Vavilin, E. V. (2021). Artificial intelligence as a participant in civil relations: the transformation of law. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Pravo, 42, 135–146. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17223/22253513/42/11

36. Voinikanis, E. A. (2020). Regulation of big data and intellectual property right: common approaches, problems and prospects of development. Zakon, 7, 135–156. (In Russ.).

37. Weizenbaum, J. (1982). Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation. Moscow: Radio i svyaz. (In Russ.).

38. Wiener, N. (1983). Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine (2d ed.). Moscow: Nauka; Glavnaya redaktsiya izdanii dlya zarubezhnykh stran. (In Russ.).

39. Wolfe, A. (1993). The Human Difference: Animals, Computers, and the Necessity of Social Science. Berkeley: University of California Press.

40. Zuboff, Sh. (2022). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. Moscow: Izd-vo Instituta Gaidara. (In Russ.).