Who Answers for Robot Decisions and Who Owns AI Assisted Creations?

RRI.CO.ID, Jakarta - The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) presents new challenges for legal systems worldwide, particularly regarding liability for the actions of autonomous robots and copyright protection for AI-assisted works. Legal experts view AI not merely as a tool, but as a system capable of processing information and making decisions independently.

Based on data from BRIN, this shift raises fundamental questions concerning the limits of human control and legal accountability for resulting consequences. The most complex issues arise with AI-driven robots that operate autonomously.

When decisions are made based on algorithms, rather than direct instructions, determining who bears the brunt of losses, even loss of life, becomes less straightforward. In robotic systems, many parties are involved, starting from creators, programmers, developers, maintainers, owners, to users, with different roles and levels of control.

To establish liability, experts suggest carefully tracing the relationships between actions, contributions, faults, and consequences. If a robot acts outside its designed parameters, the investigation must focus on the system's design, the parties who set the parameters, and those responsible for its operation and maintenance.

The concept of in loco parentis, where responsibility is assumed by the party who replaces the caregiver, has been proposed as an analogy for sharing the burden of responsibility. This concept still needs to be tested before it can fill the legal gap.

In the realm of copyright, technological progress outpacing regulation has created a legal gray area, particularly regarding the status of AI-assisted works. Three key issues have come to the fore: the originality of the work, the potential for copyright protection for prompts, and the burden of proof in disputes.

Experts argue that copyright protection should not hinge on whether AI was used, but rather on the creative process and the human's creative contribution. When generative AI is used as a tool, humans retain control by providing instructions, setting parameters, developing ideas, and evaluating the output. Within this framework, AI is positioned as an accelerator of the creative process rather than a creator.

Regarding prompts, there are two differing perspectives. The first views the prompt as part of the creative process, as it reflects the user's imagination and ideas in directing the AI. The second regards it merely as an idea or instruction ineligible for copyright protection. Some experts conclude that the prompt is part of the process, not the work itself, so its existence does not automatically give rise to copyright.

Ultimately, the evolution of AI reaffirms the fundamental principle of intellectual property law: that humans are the primary subjects of creation and that copyright protection is intended to reward human creativity. In the event of a dispute, AI-assisted works require proof regarding the extent of human creative contribution involved, while legal frameworks governing AI robotics must provide certainty regarding the allocation of responsibility based on the respective roles of the parties involved.