Quotes from an interview with Alexander Bastrykin, chairman of the Investigative Committee of Russia (ICR), with the Interfax news agency have been widely circulated in the media. The interview is titled ‘AI Technologies Indispensable in Investigating Cases, Yet Never Replace Humans’. However, it was other remarks by Russia’s chief investigator that attracted attention, above all his comments on the ‘dark side’ of neural networks.
Alexander Bastrykin believes that the Russian Criminal Code should include a universal provision establishing the most up-to-date aggravating circumstance affecting the severity of punishment. This would be ‘the commission of crime using information and communication technologies, including artificial intelligence’. However, the majority of quotations refer to his remarks on ways of bypassing internet blocks. Asked whether anything should be regulated in this area, Alexander replied concisely. In his view, introducing a new aggravating circumstance into the Criminal Code would ‘allow law enforcement to cover all acts provided for by criminal law, without exception’
Alexander Bastrykin’s interview should clearly be viewed considering all aspects as a whole. Doing so once again reveals the logic of the authorities. Faced with the most complicated situations, they invariably put forward the simplest solution, namely to introduce or tighten punishments. One could probably even say that this has become a natural response of the government institutions, particularly its law enforcement bodies, to rapid reality changes. There is no doubt that AI could not escape such response, since besides accelerating such shifts even further it turns them into a veritable ‘tidal wave’.
In the first part of his interview, after presenting recent statistics on cybercrime, the head of the ICR surprisingly mentioned that the number of cases sent to court this year ‘is at the level of the same period last year’. He then moves on to discuss the ‘bright side’ of AI, which has become an indispensable assistant in investigating large-scale or complex crimes. For example, it helps analyse video footage to identify signs of criminal activity. Alexander was then asked whether AI should be restricted in certain areas and whether liability should be introduced for harm caused specifically with the help of neural networks. At that point, the logic of his argument seemed to change in a fraction of a second.
But the impression is most likely wrong, as the logic remained the same, just applied to a different object. When AI serves the needs of the government, it is a good thing, while its use by individuals raises suspicion. Nevertheless, the head of the ICR stressed, ‘We need a clear picture of the ways certain consequences arose. AI’s actions are initiated by a human being. We need to establish what motives guided that person. Only then should we decide which specific provisions to apply.’
These remarks by Bastrykin would appear to contradict his key initiative on a universal aggravating circumstance suitable to all criminal cases without exception. This would actually reduce the scope for differentiating between such cases. With differentiation being a central approach in the criminal law, Russian legislation also explicitly stipulates the need for an individualised assessment of the criminal nature of particular actions. Ultimately, identifying all the nuances of a person’s motives is the responsibility of the courts. The Russian Constitution declares that a comprehensive judicial examination determines the degree of fairness in the administration of justice. Yet a proposed idea makes us hear precisely the opposite, stated directly and unequivocally, i.e. guilty without exception!
Apparently, all of this may seem contradictory only when viewed through the lens of classical logic. Whereas the ICR head is considering what should be done about AI, having shifted to the logic of law enforcement. In other words, the authorities will sort everything out if necessary. This is the foundation of every simple answer the authorities give to a complex question. By the way, Alexander Bastrykin said that his agency had already drawn up the necessary draft law.
ORIGINAL: NG/On the Authorities’ Natural Response to Artificial Intelligence
