China’s Legal Practices Concerning Challenges of Artificial General Intelligence

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well completed, though there are the following points expected to be improved from the reviewer's personal perspective.

1. The major object under discussion. The author selected Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) as the main topic, however, the principal discussion actually concentrates on Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI). Though GAI consists of a major branch of AGI, though the author stated the reason for which he/she chose GAI instead of AGI in line 54-56, the explanation about such "restriction" still needs to be expanded. The usage of the above two expressions could also be more precise. For instance, Page 9 Line 430, in such paragraph, mainly GAI is discussed, while an AGI is inserted in a somehow disharmonious way.

2. The quantity, novelty and source of references. The author cited abundant literature with a multi-discipline sight, however, it's still expected to add several relatively more recent (especially those published after the promulgation of Interim Measures for the Management of Generative AI services in 2023 with comments on such document) and more legal professional citations to strengthen the argumentation of the article.

3. Several details of citation needed to be accomplished.
(1) Page 4 Line 159-160, the exact article of CDPA could be specified.
(2) Page 4 Line 162, the consensus of "most scholars" on "AI itself cannot be the rights holder of a work" shall be proved.
(3) Page 11 Line 502, the authority which stipulated the "Methods for identifying illegal collection and use of personal information by Apps" is expected to be indicated.

4. The consistency between several titles and their contents could be enhanced.
(1) Page 4 Para. 2.4 (Line 163, 174, 183). The major concern is "Data security risks", however, it seems that the protection of "minority languages" and "privacy" was less relevant with such issue, especially considering the meaning of such term in China's context.
(2) Page 6-7 Para. 3.2-3.3 (in particular Line 306, 314, 328, from Line 299-341). The paragraph 3.2 discussed actually "trustworthiness of AI", while those above-mentioned contents in paragraph 3.3 "Human-centric" still talked about the same issue, which needs to be adjusted. At the meanwhile, the paragraph 3.3 could be expanded since most of its content is actually about other topic.
(3) Page 9-10 Para. 4.3.2. The paragraph 4.3.2 targets "prudent regulation principles", while according to the reviewer, the actual argument presented might be the anti-monopoly in GAI development. More analysis about "prudent regulation" is expected.
(4) Page 10 Para. 4.3.3. The paragraph 4.3.3 concerns "market rules". Though judicial cases is an even more crucial part of legal framework in digital market, with mere citation about cases, the improvement of market rules is still incomplete.
(5) Page 11 Para 4.5.1. The previous paragraph 4.4 discussed the data issue in AI field, while several points mentioned in the current paragraph 4.5.1 still concentrate on questions about data. More details particularly about AI algorithm legal regulation are expected.

5. Several corrections are suggested.
(1) Page 5 Line 223, a Chinese character is superfluous.
(2) Page 5 Line 239, the full name of FTC could be added.
(3) Page 5 Line 245, the exact time of the session should be checked and corrected.

6. The perfection of several arguments are expected.
(1) Page 6 Line 277-288. With already abundant citations, the value of "trustworthiness" could be argued in a much more specific way.
(2) Page 7 Line 345-346. The "demand-driven" approach promoting the development of AGI towards a human-centric direction could be explained with more practical and valuable examples, in addition to the case cited above.
(3) Page 8 Line 365. The concept of risk classification in AI regulation could be discussed with more reference of current legislative practice, for instance, the AI Act of EU.
(4) Page 9 Para. 4.2.2. The "liability-bearing" mechanism in AI regulation could be an important legal technical issue. The author could expand the discussion about the application of "safe harbor" principle in AI liability allocation and the modification of "fault liability" in AI "liability-bearing", which could make the article with more originality.
(5) Page 9 Para 4.3.1 Line 442-443. The circumstance in which the exercise of IP rights violates fair competition could be explained with more specific analysis.
(6) Page 10 Para 4.4.1 and 4.4.2, in particular Line 482 and 489. There could be more enumeration of current legal mechanism about data classification and grading and data trading in China, especially the "20 Points about data" published in 2022.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The expression in this article is clear, the terminology used is precise. Minor revision in language is required.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 

On behalf of all the contributing authors, I would like to express our sincere appreciations of your constructive comments concerning our article entitled “China's Legal Practices of Challenges of Artificial General Intelligence”, your comments are all valuable and helpful for improving our article.

Firstly, we have further clarified the subject of discussion in this article. We have added additional explanations in the Para 2. and Para. 4.of Part 2 to emphasize that the focus of this article is on artificial general intelligence (AGI). Additionally, we have carefully reviewed the entire text to avoid any confusion between AGI and GAI.

Secondly, in terms of the citation, we have added details for some information and footnotes to these sentences that were previously unreferenced. And we have cited several legal professional papers published in 2024 to strengthen the argument in the article. We hope that these adjustments will make the presentation of the article more rigorous.

Thirdly, we have polished the language of the article and corrected minor errors. We have also verified the specific dates of the conferences mentioned in the article and the names of some institutions. We aimed to make the expression more precise and fluent, while also enhancing the logical coherence and persuasiveness of the argument.

Finally, we have revised some content. In Part 2, specific examples were added to strengthen the persuasiveness of the arguments. In Part 3, we have provided more concrete arguments on the "trustworthiness" of AI and expanded the discussion on "human-centered". Additionally, the latest developments in Chinese practices were incorporated to ensure the timeliness and forward-looking of the content. In Part 4, we have refined certain arguments and provided a more detailed introduction to some measures. For the relevant legislative practices, such as the EU Artificial Intelligence Act and China’s Twenty Data Regulations, we have included these in the relevant sections to ensure a more comprehensive analysis. We have also expanded the discussion of the "safe harbor" principle in AI liability allocation in Section 4.2.2 to increase the article's innovativeness. For Section 4.3, we have adjusted relevant paragraphs, added content on the principle of prudent regulation, and removed unreasonable paragraph.

We hope that this revision responds to your query as much as possible. We sincerely thank for your feedback that we have used to improve the quality of our manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript brings China's practices to address challenges posed by Artificial General Intelligence to the international stage, which contributes to the worldwide academic discussion on AI regulation. The legal strategies and measures proposed in this manuscript provide further exploration for future legislation in general. 

This manuscript is clear and relevant to the discourse on AI regulation, especially in one of the most important jurisdictions, China, which differs from the US's light-touch approach and the EU's strict approach. The research aims to address issues such as attribution of liability, IP monopolies, data security and algorithm manipulation in the AI industry. To this end, this manuscript is well-reasoned and presented in a well-structured manner. The cited references are mostly recent publications and relevant to the discussion.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

On behalf of all the contributing authors, I would like to express our sincere appreciations of your constructive comments concerning our article entitled “China's Legal Practices of Challenges of Artificial General Intelligence”.

We are pleased to hear that you find our manuscript’s contribution to the international discussion on AI regulation valuable. We are committed to presenting China's legal practices to provide a unique perspective that complements the regulatory approaches observed in the US and EU. Our intention was to offer insights into how China's legal strategies can inform future legislation and regulatory frameworks of AGI.

Certainly, we have continued to revise the article to ensure that it is more precise and to enhance clarity and logic of the argument. We have revised the content of the article, specific examples were added in part 2, the latest developments in Chinese practices were incorporated in part 3 and certain arguments were refined. In addition, we have polished the language of the article and corrected minor errors.

We believe these revisions enhance the overall quality of the manuscript. Thank you once again for your insightful comments and for helping us improve our work.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors In my view, this article has successfully identified challenges of Generative Artificial Intelligence Technology such as ethical concerns in science and technology, attribution of liability, intellectual property monopolies, data security and algorithm manipulation. It further introduces China’s legal practice concerning challenges of AGI from the view point of balancing the dual values of fair competition and innovation encouragement. On the basis of above discussions, the article offers feasible and realistic suggestions for the innovative development of AGI.   The article is well structured, articulated and developed. Having said that, however, I suggest minor changes as follows.   1.May I propose to change the title of article to “China’s Legal Practice concerning Challenges of Artificial General Intelligence”? 2.Lines 179-180: The training data volume for GPT-4 has reached 13 trillion tokens. (I think that the footnote is needed) 3.Lines 290-294: In June 2020, Ant Group unveiled the Trusted AI Technology Architecture at the Global Artificial Intelligence Conference. In July 2021, Jing Dong Exploration Research Institute and the China Academy of Information and Communications Technology jointly released China's first "Trusted AI White Paper" at the World Artificial Intelligence Conference. (I think that the footnotes are needed for both facts) 4.Line 223, the Chinese word “他” shall be deleted.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language could be further improved.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 

On behalf of all the contributing authors, I would like to express our sincere appreciations of your constructive comments concerning our article entitled “China's Legal Practices concerning Challenges of Artificial General Intelligence”, your comments are all valuable and helpful for improving our article.

Firstly, we agree with your suggestion to change the title of the article to “China’s Legal Practice concerning Challenges of Artificial General Intelligence.” This revision will enhance the accuracy of the title and better reflect the focus of our discussion. We have updated the title accordingly.

Secondly, in terms of the citation, we acknowledge your suggestion to add footnotes for some information and have added footnotes to these sentences that were previously unreferenced. We hope that these adjustments will make the presentation of the article more rigorous.

Thirdly, we have polished the language of the article and corrected minor errors. We have removed the Chinese character “他” from line 223 as suggested. We aimed to make the expression more precise and fluent, while also enhancing the logical coherence and persuasiveness of the argument.

Finally, we have revised contents of the article. In part 2, specific examples were added to strengthen the persuasiveness of the arguments. In part 3, the latest developments in Chinese practices were incorporated to ensure the timeliness and forward-looking of the content. In part 4, we have refined certain arguments, providing a more detailed introduction to some measures.

We hope that this revision responds to your query as much as possible. We sincerely thank for your feedback that we have used to improve the quality of our manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No further comments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your review again.

However there is no further comments about the article.

Pls let me know if there is any problem.

Thanks a lot