经营者无须对人工智能的履约行为负责吗?——兼评《萝卜快跑出行服务协议》中的免责条款  

Are Operators not Responsible for the Performance of Artificial Intelligence?——Comments on the Exempting Clauses in the “Apollo Go Travel Service Agreement”

作　　者：付举乾 Fu Juqian

机构地区：[1]南京大学法学院,江苏南京210093

出　　处：《新疆社会科学》2025年第1期83-93,187,188,共13页Social Sciences in Xinjiang

摘　　要：“萝卜快跑”无人驾驶出租车的规模运营,预示着人工智能履约将成普遍现象。与此同时,《萝卜快跑出行服务协议》的免责条款表达了经营者不愿对此现象负责的意思。但人工智能不同于自动化等技术,可通过内在算法的决策从事行为。在人工智能履约时,这种行为区隔了债务人意志与债权人损害,给债权人救济造成了困难。传统教义学的履行辅助人制度以人类为原型设计,无法直接适用于人工智能履约。基于履约的人工智能与履行辅助人之间的类似性,可通过类推适用履行辅助人制度将人工智能的履行行为归责于债务人。因此,经营者须如对履约的员工负责那般,对人工智能的履约行为负责。相应地,免除这种责任的格式条款,原则上会因违反诚实信用而无效。The large-scale operation of "Apollo Go" driverless taxis indicates that artificial intelligence contract performance will become a common phenomenon.At the same time,the exempting clause of the "Apollo Go Travel Service Agreement" expresses the operator's unwillingness to be responsible for this phenomenon.But artificial intelligence,which can engage in behavior through decision-making based on inherent algorithms,is different from technologies such as automation.When artificial intelligence performs a contract,this behavior separates the debtor's will from the creditor's harm,causing difficulties for the creditor's relief.The performance assistant institution of traditional dogmatics is designed based on human beings and cannot be directly applied to artificial intelligence contract performance.Based on the similarity between the artificial intelligence performing the contract and the performance assistant,the performance assistant institution can be applied by analogy to attribute the performance behavior of the artificial intelligence to the debtor.Therefore,operators must be responsible for the performance of artificial intelligence as they are responsible for employees who perform the contract.Accordingly,standard clauses exempting such liability will,in principle,be invalid due to breach of good faith.

关 键 词：人工智能履行合同 履行辅助人 归责初始主体 自动驾驶 

分 类 号：D922.294[政治法律—经济法学]