ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN THE AUSPICES OF LAW: A DIVERGE PERSPECTIVE

Artificial Intelligence (AI), encompassing computation for perception, reasoning, and action, poses complex legal considerations. This study explores AI’s impact and its legal ramifications, particularly its autonomy in communication and creation, raising concerns about language, intellectual property, and ethical accountability. Influenced by Common Law and Civil Law systems, discussions vary. Evaluating AI creator liability uncovers intricate connections between AI’s autonomy, intentionality, and creators’ roles. The approach used in this article are based on normative method with multidisciplinary discipline. The results are that though AI creators aren’t directly liable, vicarious liability could link actions to AI behaviors based on programming choices. Balancing innovation and accountability calibrated “creator immunities” are vital. Unchecked immunities could impede responsible AI development; measured immunities might encourage ethical practices, considering AI nuances and societal impacts. Positioning AI as a legal subject necessitates tailored approaches within ethical boundaries. The proposition of AI as a derivative legal subject while setting clear limits is pivotal. Adapting legal systems to evolving AI landscapes and reconciling advancement with societal well-being, is crucial. AI’s intricate accountability, its legal standing, and creator liabilities and immunities demand reshaping legal frameworks for an ethical AI environment.


A. Introduction
Artificial Intelligence, commonly referred to as AI, stands as one of the most remarkable breakthroughs of the 21st century. 1 Its definition, however, remains elusive, defying a singular encapsulation.While attempts have been made to capture its essence, the words of Winston come close to a comprehensive understanding: AI is an intricate study of computation aimed at endowing machines with the ability to perceive, reason, and act.
In the spirit of these insights, a more nuanced interpretation emerges -AI assumes the role of a dynamic entity that imbibes, learns, and adapts from an ever-expanding repository of data. 2 This ceaseless process fuels its evolution, empowering AI to comprehend, respond, and adjust with astonishing agility.
As AI steadily advances, it carries the promise of transformative changes across various facets of existence.
A pivotal instance materialized in 2017 when researchers at the Facebook Artificial Intelligence Research lab embarked on training chatbots to negotiate.However, a profound shift occurred as these bots spontaneously devised a communication system of their own. 3This episode underscores the potential of AI to revolutionize language and communication, pushing the boundaries of conventional norms and propelling us into a future where the discourse is redefined.Yet, alongside these strides, concerns arise about the ethical dimensions that AI introduces.Instances of AI-generated content, such as the eerily convincing music clips featuring renowned artists like Drake and The Weekend, emphasize the potency of Deep Learning algorithms in crafting content by mimicking patterns from extensive training data. 4These occurrences hint at the ethical dilemmas stemming from AI's capacity for indiscriminate replication and innovation.Notably, this conundrum sparks discussions on accountability, probing into the question of who should bear the responsibility for AI's actions and creative outputs.
In the realm of legality, the distinction between natural persons and juridical entities serves as a cornerstone.Natural persons are individuals bestowed with inherent legal standing from birth, while juridical entities encompass a group of individuals united by contractual arrangements, seeking legal recognition to facilitate their operations. 5With AI's accelerating presence, scholars like Yuwono et al. posit that the time has come to allocate a specialized legal status to AI.This perspective resonates with the idea of conferring AI with limited legal personhood, reflecting the acknowledgment of its capabilities and potential repercussions. 6As nations endeavor to navigate 3 Karla Lant, "A Facebook AI Unexpectedly Created Its Own Unique Language," Futurism, June 16, 2017, https://futurism.com/a-facebook-ai-unexpectedly-created-its-own-unique-language. 4 University of York, "AI-Generated Music Inferior to Human-Composed Works, According to Study," york.ac.uk, 2023, https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2023/research/aigenerated-music-inferior-to-human-composed/. 5 Elvia Arcelia Quintana Adriano, "Natural Persons, Juridical Persons and Legal Personhood," Mexican Law Review 8 (July 2015): 101-18, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mexlaw.2015.12.005.6 Yuwono Prianto, Viony Kresna Sumantri, and Paksi Yudha Sasmita, "Pros and Cons of AI Robot as a Legal Subject," in Proceedings of the Tarumanagara International Conference on the Applications of Social Sciences and Humanities (TICASH 2019) (Atlantis Press, 2020), https:// the legal landscape, a call for unified international collaboration emerges, seeking to construct a harmonized framework that respects cultural nuances and local exigencies, mirroring the philosophy of historical jurisprudence advocated by Savigny 7 .
Amid these deliberations, researchers such as Zhifeng Wen and Deyi   Tong delve into the pivotal question of AI's legal subjectivity.While AI might not fulfill the prerequisites to be an original legal subject akin to a natural person, the concept of a derivative legal subject emerges as a plausible avenue. 8This prompts introspection into the prospect of AI's liability for actions, ranging from unintentional deception to creative ventures stemming from data analysis.Equally pressing is the query of how to demarcate the boundaries of AI's legal personhood, effectively delineating its rights and responsibilities within the realm of law.In the tapestry of AI's expanding influence, intricate questions unfurl, transcending the realms of technology, ethics, and jurisprudence.From these findings, two questions emerge, first, is it possible for an AI to held liable for its own action neither done by misleading a group of people, making music using the data it received, or did some unethical violation that even its creator cannot build a model to rectify the system?Second, how to measure the limitations of an AI as a legal subject in order to stipulate its rights to become a proper legal subject?
The research undertaken in this paper is rooted in a legal-ethical analysis methodology, which offers a comprehensive exploration of the intricate dynamics between artificial intelligence (AI) and established legal principles.Employing a qualitative approach, the study extensively examines a range of primary and secondary sources, including legal statutes, case law, academic literature, philosophical discussions, and ethical considerations.
This methodological framework enables a thorough investigation into The paper's comprehensive analysis contributes to the ongoing discourse on AI's legal standing, presenting a thought-provoking exploration that considers both legal tenets and ethical imperatives.

B. Artificial Intelligence & Law: Navigating the System
The intersection of AI and law has brought forth a dynamic landscape with profound implications for legal systems globally.AI, characterized by its ability to simulate human intelligence, learn from data, and make decisions, has rapidly advanced across various domains, including healthcare, finance, and entertainment.In the realm of law, AI has demonstrated immense potential in enhancing legal research, contract analysis, and even predicting legal outcomes.However, this technological evolution presents a spectrum of legal challenges and ethical concerns that necessitate careful consideration.
At the core of the AI and law discourse lies the question of accountability.As AI systems autonomously engage in decision-making processes, determining responsibility in cases of errors or biases becomes complex. 9Legal frameworks need to adapt to hold both AI developers and users accountable, ascribing of Common Law, the proposition of AI as a legal subject unveils a trove of intricate legal and philosophical questions.Elevation of AI entities to a status akin to legal persons -be it humans or corporations -propels contemplation on uncharted territories. 16Central inquiries emerge, encompassing AI's potential to engage in contractual relations, the intricate labyrinth of accountability for AI-mediated actions, and the profound ethical underpinnings of ascribing legal rights and obligations to entities devoid of human consciousness.In stark contrast, the concept of AI as a legal object adheres to existing legal paradigms, with AI viewed as an extension of human invention and skill.This viewpoint shifts emphasis to the duties attached to the developers, operators, or users of AI systems, generating reflections that parallel the well-established conceptions of product liability and the exercise of lordship over technical artifacts. 17 Most countries in their lawmaking system does not acknowledge the terms AI, best known terms related to AI is "computer-generated" but it is important to take note that in specific meaning, computer-generated works (CGW) are much more emphasized to a software being used to aid the work of a person (not sentient) as defined in Cambridge Dictionary computer-generated is something that produced using a computer program (the word using is not the same as the word by). 18But this term has its own different meaning in some regulations.United Kingdom in its Copyrights Act 1988 acknowledge that AI existed using the term CGW, in Section 178 CGW defined as the work that's generated by computer when there is no human author of the work, whilst recognizing the base structure of an AI, in Section 9 Paragraph 3 it is to deceive --is harmful.While lying has traditionally been a human affair, AI systems that make sophisticated verbal statements are becoming increasingly prevalent.This raises the question of how we should limit the harm caused by AI \"lies\" (i.e.falsehoods that are actively selected for 18 Cambridge Dictionary, "Computer-Generated," Cambridge English Dictionary, accessed June 9, 2023, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/computer-generated. said that (in a simpler meaning) in the case of CGW the author is the person whom arranges necessary works for the creation.Furthermore, in Section 12 Paragraph 7 explained that copyrights of the CGW expires in 50 years from the moment it was made, so it is clear that works made by AI are protected.
But still according to personal rights, in Section 79 Paragraph 2(c) note that CGW has no personal rights regarding to the right being identified as author or director in Section 77, same thing happens in Section 81 which ignores the rights of derogatory treatment in Section 80 if it's CGW. 19In other words, Copyrights Act are protecting the works of an AI yet denies the personal rights to its authorship (does not belong to AI itself). 20In 2021, UK Supreme Court challenged by appellant Dr. Stephen Thaler talks about the patent of the inventions that was produced by an AI known as DABUS, UK Supreme Court dismissed the case within the cause that Thaler's action does not pass the requirements on the provision, nevertheless he is the owner of DABUS, that an Inventor should be recognized as a natural person meanwhile DABUS is not. 21In simpler way to explain that Common Law systems in certain countries (and some Civil Law countries) albeit recognizes AI through CGW (or similar terms regards to the other countries), still it has no capabilities to adjudicate an AI as stand-alone entity.
Stepping into the domain of Civil Law systems, the interplay between AI's legal characterization as a subject or an object navigates labyrinthine paths of legal thought (this issue also emerge in modern common law countries). 22stowing AI with legal subjectivity necessitates the meticulous reevaluation of existing legal taxonomies, potentially heralding the dawn of novel legislative structures. 23The endeavor to incorporate AI into pre-existing categories might prompt ingenious reinterpretations or even the formulation of distinct legal frameworks tailored to AI's sui generis nature. 24This trajectory could culminate in legislations that navigate AI's rights, duties, and the intricacies of attributing liability with acuity.Conversely, casting AI as a legal object within the landscape of Civil Law retains a semblance of familiarity.This approach accentuates the normative legal relationships underpinning property, contracts, and obligations, thereby embedding AI into the continuum of pre-existing legal norms.Martsenko, in his research found that, to put AI as a legal subject is inappropriate and could bring legal uncertainty, the term electronic person in EU normative acts are unreasonable and premature for it does not give such holistic legal representation, Martsenko proposes that AI are better count as an object of law respecting the principle of proportionality that the higher the risk of harm, the higher the measure of liability. 25Martsenko's opinion are supported by Kamyshanskiy, which suggested that AI are much more appropriate to be a legal object, and in context of law-making it is best to adopt the regulations containing peremptory norms, furthermore Kamyshanskiy proposes the necessity of an international system control the development of AI. 26 It can be concluded that in spite of the rarity of the available provisions that regulate AI, civil law system are more likely to put AI as a legal object rather than legal subject, civil law system approaches towards AI are from the side of the cause and effect in a short term just in order to bring such legal certainty in the society, but common law grasps the other end of this matter, that is the long term effect of an emerging eternal being (AI), are at least secured and develops as the issues regarding AI evolves-as in common law

D. Creator Liabilities and Immunities
The question of whether an AI creator can be held liable for the actions of the AI presents a complex legal and ethical challenge at the intersection of technological innovation and legal responsibility.While the AI creator plays an integral role in designing and initializing the AI system, establishing direct culpability for the AI's actions raises intricate issues of causation, foreseeability, and accountability.From a legal perspective, liability generally adheres to human actors who possess intentionality and a capacity to comprehend the consequences of their actions. 29AI systems, however advanced, operate based on algorithms and data patterns without possessing genuine consciousness or volition. 30As such, traditional notions of legal culpability may not seamlessly apply to the AI creator.Nonetheless, the principle of vicarious liability in agency law could potentially be invoked, positing that an AI creator assumes some responsibility for their AI's behavior due to their role in its creation. 31is approach, while subject to debate, seeks to establish a link between the AI's actions and the choices made by its creator in configuring its programming, training data, and parameters.
Critical examination of this issue necessitates consideration of the nature of AI's autonomy, its ability to operate independently, and the extent to which its actions can be attributed to the design choices made by its creator.
It is imperative to ascertain whether the AI creator possessed the knowledge and capability to predict, prevent, or control the AI's actions that resulted in harmful outcomes.Ultimately, while holding an AI creator strictly liable for an AI's actions poses challenges within the current legal framework, there is a compelling argument to assign a degree of responsibility, particularly if a creator's negligence or deliberate choices directly contribute to an AI's harmful conduct. 32To achieve such balance between encouraging technological advancement and establishing accountability for potential negative consequences will likely require the adaptation of existing legal paradigms or the creation of novel legal constructs tailored to the distinct features of AI systems.
Creator immunities pertain to legal provisions that shield AI creators from certain forms of liability arising from the actions of their AI systems.
While these immunities may seemingly foster an environment conducive to technological advancement, they warrant careful examination in light of ethical and societal implications. 33From a legal standpoint, the concept of "creator immunities" bears resemblance to established legal principles governing tort law, which often consider the reasonable foreseeability of harm as a pivotal factor in attributing liability. 34However, the application of these principles to AI technology necessitates a recalibration to account for the inherent complexities and uncertainties associated with AI decision-making processes.Critical analysis reveals that unbridled "creator immunities" may inadvertently disincentivize the exercise of due diligence in AI development.
Offering creators sweeping legal protection could obscure the accountability inherent in responsible innovation. 35Instead of fostering an environment that encourages meticulous risk assessment and prudent design, such immunities might encourage a laissez-faire 36 approach to AI system creation, potentially leading to greater exposure to risks and harms. 37 the other hand, measured "creator immunities" could offer a balanced approach.These immunities could be structured to encourage proactive AI development while acknowledging creators' genuine efforts to ensure the ethical and safe operation of their systems.For instance, "creator immunities" could be tied to demonstrable evidence of diligent risk assessment, transparent explanations.In addition, we urge designers to design against potential harms that may be caused by a generative model's hazardous output, misuse, or potential for human displacement.We anticipate these principles to usefully inform design decisions made in the creation of novel human-AI applications, and we invite the community to apply, revise, and extend these principles to their own work.","DOI":"10.48550/ARXIV.2301.05578","license":"arXiv.org perpetual, nonexclusive license","note":"publisher: [object Object]\nversion: 1","source":"DOI.org(Datacite accountability mechanisms.The legal framework should carefully define the scope of immunities to ensure that instances of intentional misconduct, gross negligence, or foreseeable harm remain within the purview of liability.
Critical reflection on the societal implications of "creator immunities" is imperative, encompassing the multifaceted considerations of public welfare, ethical conduct, and the long-term trajectory of AI advancement.Striking the right balance between innovation and accountability is essential to foster a technologically progressive yet ethically responsible AI landscape.In essence, while "creator immunities" might hold potential merit in specific contexts, a measured and context-sensitive approach should be adopted to ensure the enduring equilibrium between AI innovation and societal welfare.

E. The Fittings of Legal Subject in the Auspices of Law and Its Relations with AI
The concept of the legal subject lies at the heart of legal systems, embodying the intricate web of rights, responsibilities, and capacities that individuals, entities, and even certain abstract ideas possess under the auspices of the law.In essence, the legal subject serves as the cornerstone upon which the edifice of jurisprudence is constructed, forming the nexus through which legal rights and obligations are acknowledged, contested, and administered.The notion of legal subjectivity transcends mere legalistic definitions, encompassing philosophical, social, and ethical dimensions that shape the contours of modern societies. 38It is essential to recognize that legal subjectivity is not monolithic, rather, it varies across jurisdictions, cultures, and legal traditions, reflecting the diverse values and principles that underpin different legal systems worldwide. 39The fittings of legal subjectivity extend beyond individual humans to encompass an array of entities, such as corporations, partnerships, and even, in certain cases, natural elements like rivers or ecosystems. 40This expansive inclusivity underscores the adaptive nature of law to accommodate the evolving complexities of contemporary life.Moreover, the fittings of legal subjectivity extend temporally, bridging the present with the past and future through doctrines like legal personality and inheritance.The temporal dimension accentuates the continuity of legal systems and provides a mechanism for the transmission of rights and obligations. 41thor wants to emphasize that AI no longer need to be considered as a legal object, AI itself are evolving every day as human and every other living being does, it is not necessary to give such legal certainty in a fast-paced manner, but to provide such certainty necessarily needs to be effective and efficient.That is why AI is best to be in position as a legal subject.A subject is defined as a person who understands something, understands something as in knowing that he or she are sane and knew that he aware nor conscious to his act, so legal subject is a person who knew that he held such responsibility to any act he performs and aware that there is law which regulate specific things forbidden to be done, in this specific element, AI has fulfilled the terms to be a legal subject.There are some things that need to be understood, that AI are not necessarily be given the same rights and authority as a natural legal subject, AI are considered to be special or limited legal subject.It is clear that there are no more being that can be counted as a natural legal subject aside from human, even though AI have the ability to process things almost complicated as human does, but almost is never enough, an immortal machine cannot be compared to a mortal human, at least for now.Human has human rights which are universally known and protected, but there is deviation that can be done if a person had fulfilled such requirements for his human rights to be 'revoked'.
This deviation will happen when a person commits a highly forbidden thing, human rights violations (e.g., war crime, genocide, corruption recidivist, etc.).
Analogically, as human rights can be revoked from a person, then it is fair to say that AI are able to hold the role as a legal subject or at least a derivative legal subject.A derivative legal subject refers to an entity or individual whose legal attributes, rights, or obligations are intricately linked to and emanate from another primary legal subject. 43Essentially, the derivative legal subject's legal existence and standing are contingent upon the primary subject, often resulting in a subsidiary relationship. 44This concept is particularly observable in scenarios where legal rights, responsibilities, or liabilities extend beyond the primary subject to include related parties.For instance, subsidiary companies within a corporate structure are derivative legal subjects, deriving their legal capacity and identity from the parent company.Similarly, family members of a deceased individual might possess derivative legal rights, such as inheritance entitlements, based on their association with the primary legal subject.In essence, the notion of derivative legal subjects underscores the intricate interconnectedness of legal relationships, where the legal status and attributes of certain entities or individuals are intertwined with their affiliation to a primary legal subject, showcasing the nuanced dynamics that define legal frameworks.
In simple terms derivative legal subject are like a legal person which bears almost all the legal personality that natural person had, in order to make them a legal subject, so giving derivative legal subject to AI is not making it in the same position as natural person, but to make it as a legal subject, which held duties and obligations. 45Many legal practitioners has used AI as a tool to organize and even determine some cases, as an example there are courts in Canada and California which used this method 46 , this use of AI in legal system are necessary to be questioned, as said in the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces that legal decision making by using AI are based on trust, and as already known that trust is fragile and cannot be restored quickly, an experiment conducted related to this matter resulted that AI trust is indeed affected by human-like explanation, and this is very concerning. 47

Legal Framework for Artificial Intelligence
The rapid proliferation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies across diverse sectors has precipitated the necessity for a comprehensive legal framework that governs the intricacies of AI integration.As AI applications become increasingly ubiquitous, spanning domains such as healthcare, finance, and telecommunications, the imperative for a legally sound architecture becomes manifest.An adeptly structured legal framework for AI constitutes the bedrock for not only nurturing innovation but also facilitating accountability, thereby addressing the intricate ethical and societal considerations attendant upon the assimilation of AI into the socio-legal paradigm.At the crux of the endeavor to construct a judicious legal framework lies the intricate task of harmonizing the dual imperatives of fostering innovation and upholding accountability.The inherently intricate and swiftly evolving character of AI warrants an adaptive approach that accommodates the swiftness of technological progression, whilst concurrently insulating against potential exigencies.Cardinal elements of this regulatory architecture entail the discernment of legal personality for AI entities, the elucidation of liability constructs vis-à-vis AI-generated actions, and the articulation of protocols governing data utilization and ownership. 48The formulation of these tenets necessitates interdisciplinary synergy, enlisting the expertise of legal luminaries, technocrats, ethicists, and policy architects, to guarantee that the regulatory framework remains synchronous with the unfolding contours of the AI landscape. 49One of the cardinal considerations intrinsic to the establishment of a legal framework for AI pertains to the amelioration of inherent biases and discriminatory predilections within AI algorithms, AI systems are predicated upon erudition from historical data repositories, thereby susceptible to encoding prevailing biases inherent within societal frameworks. 50The crafting of regulations mandating transparency, accountability, and perpetual auditability of AI algorithms emerges as an exigency of cardinal consequence to ameliorate these biases and ensure the even-handedness of decision-making processes.Concomitantly, the regulatory schema must be adeptly calibrated to accommodate the distinct challenges occasioned by AI, embracing nuanced facets such as informed consent when interfacing with AI-derived insights and prognostications anchored in personal data.
The transnational compass of AI augments the exigency of international cooperation and standardization in the sculpting of a legal framework.The harmonization of AI regulations at the international stratum engenders the facilitation of knowledge transfer, impetus to ethical AI practices, and the curbing of a splintered regulatory domain that could encumber innovation.Artifisial Indonesia). 55This strategy aims to promote AI research, development, and adoption while emphasizing the importance of ethical considerations. 56 fostering collaboration between governmental agencies, academia, and industry, Indonesia seeks to create a conducive environment for AI innovation while ensuring responsible and accountable AI deployment.The Indonesian legal system's adaptability provides a foundation for effectively regulating AI.Leveraging existing legal principles related to liability, intellectual property, and consumer protection can help address AI-specific challenges.
Collaborative efforts between legal experts, technologists, and policymakers can result in the formulation of AI-specific regulations that cater to the nation's unique social, economic, and cultural contexts.Furthermore, by engaging in international discussions on AI governance and learning from global best practices, Indonesia can develop a robust regulatory framework that aligns with international standards.The regulation of AI within the Indonesian National Legal System presents a multidimensional challenge, stemming from the technology's rapid evolution, diverse applications, and ethical considerations.
However, the prospects for effective regulation are encouraging, given the government's commitment to fostering AI innovation while upholding ethical and legal standards.By embracing interdisciplinary collaboration, drawing from existing legal principles, and actively participating in international dialogues, Indonesia can position itself to harness the benefits of AI while mitigating potential risks.Through strategic and well-informed regulatory efforts, Indonesia can navigate the intricate landscape of AI and pave the way for a technologically advanced and ethically sound future.

H. Conclusion
In conclusion, the complex interaction between artificial intelligence The debate surrounding "creator liabilities and immunities" warrants careful calibration.While AI creator liability exists in specific contexts, crafting "creator immunities" demands a nuanced approach.These immunities could incentivize diligent AI development, requiring evidence of risk assessment and transparent AI limitations.However, an excessive shield may disincentivize responsible innovation, risking public trust.In conclusion, recognizing AI's capacity to comprehend, adapt, and abide by rules suggests the establishment of a derivative legal subject.This recognition requires precise calibration to respect AI's attributes while maintaining ethical standards.Striking a balance between AI innovation and societal welfare remains a priority as the legal system adapts to the evolving AI landscape.

(
AI) and legal principles underscores the need to redefine traditional legal concepts for the unique AI landscape.The question of AI liability for actions such as misleading, creative output, or unethical behavior challenges existing frameworks due to AI's lack of consciousness.The principle of vicarious liability offers a potential route, holding AI creators partially responsible for AI actions influenced by their programming decisions.Determining the limitations of AI as a legal subject requires a balanced approach between technological advancement and ethical considerations.Designating AI as a derivative legal subject, distinct from natural persons, grants it responsibilities while acknowledging differences in rights.Measuring these limitations necessitates compliance with ethical and regulatory bounds, analogous to human rights revocation.AI's rapid growth in Indonesia presents opportunities and challenges.Comprehensive regulations are needed due to its evolving nature, but traditional laws struggle to keep up, leading to uncertainty.Ensuring ethical AI is complex without standardized guidelines.Indonesia's government aims to address this through the National AI Strategy.Despite challenges, Indonesia's adaptable legal system and ethical commitment show promise for a responsible AI future.U N I V E R S I T A S G A D J A H M A D A
/10.13180/icres.2018.20-21.08.017.17Evans et al., "Truthful AI"; Yuwono Prianto, Viony Kresna Sumantri, andPaksi Yudha Sasmita, "Pros and Cons of AI Robot as a Legal Subject," in Proceedings of the Tarumanagara International Conference on the Applications of Social Sciences and Humanities (TICASH 2019) (Atlantis Press, 2020), https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200515.067.lying--the use of verbal falsehoods 16 Bendert Zevenbergen et al., "Appropriateness and Feasibility of Legal Personhood for AI Systems," in Hybrid Worlds: Societal and Ethical Challenges (The International Conference on Robot Ethics and Standards (ICRES 2018), CLAWAR Association Ltd, UK, 2018), https://doi.org AI are utilized in legal disputes.27InCommonLawjurisdictions, considering AI as a legal subject might involve extending legal rights and responsibilities to AI entities, similar to humans or corporations.This could raise questions about AI's ability to engage in contracts and its liability for actions.Conversely, regarding AI as a legal object could place liability on its human creators, operators, or users, following established principles of product liability.In Civil Law systems, recognizing AI as a legal subject might necessitate the creation of new legal categories, requiring adjustments to existing legislation or the introduction of novel laws to define AI's rights and obligations.Alternatively, perceiving AI as Flora P.Kalaloand Kathleen C. Pontoh, "The Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Legal Framework for International Arbitration Practices in Indonesia," in Proceedings of the Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution International Conference (ADRIC 2019) 25 Natalia Martsenko, "Określenie Miejsca Sztucznej Inteligencji w Prawie Cywilnym," Studia Prawnoustrojowe, no.47 (March 20, 2020), https://doi.org/10.31648/sp.5279.26 Vladimir Kamyshanskiy et al., "Digital Society, Artificial Intelligence and Modern Civil Law: Challenges and Perspectives," SHS Web of Conferences 109 (May 31, 2021): 01016, https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202110901016.system a legal object could emphasize ownership and contractual aspects, integrating AI within established legal frameworks.The evolving complexity of AI's autonomy, decision-making capabilities, and potential for harm underscores the ongoing necessity for legal systems to adapt and strike a balance between accommodating technological progress and maintaining legal order.Yet, this discourse transcends the confines of legal mechanics.It is a manifestation of society's endeavor to harmonize technological prowess with ethical and legal paradigms.The synergy between innovation and tradition rests at the heart of this debate, necessitating the harmonious orchestration of diverse stakeholders -jurists, legislators, technologists, ethicists, and the public at large.As AI evolves and weaves itself deeper into the fabric of existence, the profound deliberations on its legal character will invariably mirror humanity's evolving relationship with technology, reflecting our collective aspirations, values, and vision for the future. 2827 k.211014.062;Trevor Bench-Capon, "Using Issues to Explain Legal Decisions," 2021, https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2106.14688.28 Yunfeng Zhang, Q. Vera Liao, and Rachel K. E. Bellamy, "Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Making," in Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT* '20: Conference on Weisz et al., "Toward General DesignPrinciples for Generative AI Applications," 2023, https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2301.05578;Thomas P Quinn and Simon Coghlan, "Readying Medical Students for Medical AI: The Need to Embed AI Ethics Education," 2021, https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2109.02866.utility,and use.As generative technologies are being incorporated into mainstream applications, there is a need for guidance on how to design those applications to foster productive and safe use.Based on recent research on human-AI cocreation within the HCI and AI communities, we present a set of seven principles for the design of generative AI applications.These principles are grounded in an environment of generative variability.Six principles are focused on designing for characteristics of generative AI: multiple outcomes &amp; imperfection; exploration &amp; control; and mental models &amp; disclosure of AI limitations, and ongoing maintenance efforts.Nevertheless, crafting "creator immunities" demands careful consideration of potential negative externalities.Immunities that excessively shield AI creators could undermine public trust, enabling the deployment of AI systems with opaque 35 Christopher Burr and David Leslie, "Ethical Assurance: A Practical Approach to the Responsible Design, Development, and Deployment of Data-Driven Technologies," 2021, https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2110.05164;Zhang, Liao, and Bellamy, "Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Making. 43 Kadek Cahya Wibawa and Aga Natalis, "Animals Prospectus as a Legal Subject of Environmental Law In Indonesia (A Study of Ecofeminism)," in Proceedings of The International Conference on Environmental and Technology of Law, Business and Education on Post Covid 19, ICETLAWBE 2020, 26 September 2020, Bandar Lampung, Indonesia (Proceedings of The International Conference on Environmental and Technology of Law, Business and Education on Post Covid 19, ICETLAWBE 2020, 26 September 2020, Bandar Lampung, Indonesia, Bandar Lampung, Indonesia: EAI, 2020), https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.26-9-2020.2302557.44 Kristen Rundle, Revisiting the Rule of Law, 1st ed.(Cambridge University Press, 2023), https:// doi.org/10.1017/9781009000512.

45
Wen and Tong, "Analysis of the Legal Subject Status of Artificial Intelligence."46 Maxime C. Cohen et al., "The Use of AI in Legal Systems: Determining Independent Contractor vs. Employee Status," Artificial Intelligence and Law, March 30, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-023-09353-y.47 Patricia K. Kahr et al., "It Seems Smart, but It Acts Stupid: Development of Trust in AI Advice in a Repeated Legal Decision-Making Task," in Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2023), 528-39, https:// doi.org/10.1145/3581641.3584058.

Regulating AI in the Indonesian National Legal System: Challenges and Prospects
Readying Medical Students for Medical AI."tourism, and school transport.Buses are the common mode of transport all over the world.The growth in economy, the electrification of public transport, demand in shared transport, etc., is leading to a surge in the demand for buses and accelerating the overall growth of the bus industry.With the increased number of buses, the issue of safety of passengers and the crew assumes special importance.The comfort of driver and passenger in the vehicle involves the vibration performance and therefore, the structural integrity of buses is critically important.Bus safety act depicts the safety and comfort of bus operations, management of safety risks, continuous improvement in bus safety management, public confidence in the safety of bus transport, appropriate stakeholder involvement and the existence of a safety culture among bus service providers.In order to provide buses with minimal vibration resistant superstructure, CMVR-Technical Standing Committee have framed requisite guidelines on Standardization of the Bus Body.AIS-052 (Rev.1)52 Tam Nguyen et al., "The Impact of Paradoxical Leadership on Public Sector Innovation Through Entrepreneurial Orientation and Goal Congruence," 2022, 165-74, https://doi.org/10.15439/2022M6261.53 Creswell, Cooper, and Murray, "Intergenerational Transmission of Anxious Information Processing Biases."U N I V E R S I T A S G A D J A H M A D A systems must adhere to. 54Additionally, the inherently interdisciplinary nature of AI ethics necessitates collaboration between legal experts, technologists, ethicists, and other stakeholders to develop comprehensive guidelines that reflect Indonesian societal values.Prospects for regulating AI within the Indonesian National Legal System are nevertheless promising.The government has demonstrated a commitment to addressing these challenges through various initiatives, such as the establishment of the National AI Strategy (Sekretariat Nasional Kecerdasan G.