高级检索

人工智能专门立法暂缓背景下的沙盒监管:监管取向与规范建制

Sandbox Regulation in the Context of Paused Specialized AI Legislation: Regulatory Orientation and Institutional Framework

  • 摘要: 当前,人工智能在引领社会变革的同时也带来了诸多风险和挑战,科林格里奇困境愈发凸显。为此,我国以地区性、行业性试点的方式探索建立人工智能的沙盒监管机制。沙盒监管从计算机到金融科技,再拓展至人工智能领域,经历了“移植”与“再移植”的过程,其本质目的在于通过“沙盒”这一机制将被监管对象的风险控制在有限范围内,以试验的方式对待新兴事物所存在的双重不确定性,推动监管对象本身的发展。但是,当前的实践表明,我国人工智能沙盒监管在程序、管理和主体三个层面面临着一些困境,制约了沙盒监管的效能发挥。在程序层面,人工智能沙盒监管尚未明确准入与准出标准,且与外部的常规监管程序未达成有效衔接;在管理层面,我国人工智能沙盒监管的灵活性与引导性表现较弱;在主体层面,呈现出以监管机构与被监管企业为主的二元化主体特征,缺少专家、消费者等独立第三方群体的参与。对此,首先需要明确,鉴于人工智能的产业链分层特性,在专门立法暂缓背景下,我国宜以行业性为主的方式推进人工智能的沙盒监管。其次,在程序上应区分层级、行业,细化“入盒”与“出盒”的标准,并实现与外部的常规监管程序的有效衔接。再次,在管理上采取分层治理、分类实施的管理方式,建立沙盒专员制度。最后,在主体层面将消费者、第三方独立机构纳入沙盒监管中,推动多元主体的合作。

     

    Abstract: Currently, while artificial intelligence is driving social transformation, it also brings numerous risks and challenges, highlighting the "Collingridge Dilemma". In response, China has been exploring artificial intelligence(AI) sandbox regulation through regional and sector-specific pilot programs. The sandbox regulatory approach, originally applied in computing and later in fintech, has undergone a process of "transplantation" and "re-transplantation" into the field of AI. Its core objective is to contain risks within a limited scope through regulatory experimentation, addressing the dual uncertainties associated with emerging technologies while fostering their development. However, current practices reveal that China's AI sandbox regulation faces challenges at the procedural, managerial, and participatory levels, hindering its effectiveness. Procedurally, there is a lack of clear entry and exit criteria, as well as insufficient integration with conventional regulatory processes. Managerially, the flexibility and guidance of AI sandbox regulation remain weak. In terms of participation, the structure is predominantly binary, involving mainly regulators and regulated enterprises, with limited involvement of independent third parties such as experts and consumers. To address these issues, it is essential to first recognize that, given the layered industrial chain of AI and the current pause in specialized legislation, China should prioritize sector-specific approaches in advancing AI sandbox regulation. Secondly, procedurally, entry and exit standards should be refined across different levels and sectors, while ensuring effective linkage with external conventional regulatory procedures. Thirdly, managerially, a layered and categorized governance approach should be adopted, including the establishment of a sandbox specialist system. Finally, in terms of participation, consumers and independent third-party institutions should be incorporated into the sandbox regulatory framework to promote multi-stakeholder collaboration.

     

/

返回文章
返回