Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The article examines the theoretical and practical aspects of the legal understanding of artificial intelligence, analyzes the existing regulatory and doctrinal approaches to defining this concept, reveals its legally significant features, and presents the principles of applying artificial intelligence. The relevance of the topic is due to the rapid development of artificial intelligence technologies and the expanding possibilities for their application in various areas of legal activity, as well as the need to develop scientifically grounded approaches to defining the limits, principles, and permissible forms of use of relevant technologies while preserving the decisive role of humans in carrying out legally significant activities. The main goal of the study is to examine the legal nature of artificial intelligence by substantiating its exclusively object status in the system of legal relations and by critically assessing the concept of recognizing artificial intelligence as a quasi‑subject of law, which is the central problem of the study. Based on the conducted research, using general scientific and specific scientific methods of cognition, the work formulates the author’s doctrinal and legislative definitions of artificial intelligence, proposes a system of conceptual foundations (principles) for its application in legal activities, and also justifies the need for further improvement of the regulatory framework for artificial intelligence, taking into account current trends in the digital transformation of legal activities. Considerable attention is devoted to examining the principles of using artificial intelligence in legal practice. Specifically, the following principles are analyzed: the auxiliary nature of artificial intelligence, the need to maintain constant human oversight, the permissibility of delegating only technical and analytical functions, and the controllability and targeted use of artificial intelligence.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Palekha et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: