Group 1 - The article discusses the evolution of digital economy and its impact on legal frameworks, highlighting the transition from a rule-less environment to one with established regulations [2][3][10] - It emphasizes the importance of understanding how digital production methods have led to changes in property rights, labor relations, and distribution rules, which are increasingly relevant to daily life [10][11] Group 2 - The rise of digital production methods is characterized as an "illegal emergence," where traditional legal frameworks were challenged and adapted to accommodate new economic realities [11][16][18] - The article notes that the digital economy initially relied on low-cost access to resources, which often involved practices like piracy to attract users and establish a competitive edge [19][20][21] Group 3 - Legal responses to the new economy have varied, with some advocating for specific legislation to address emerging business models, while others prefer a more traditional approach that treats new disputes as existing legal issues [26][27][28] - The article highlights the tension between traditional economic rules and the unique characteristics of the internet, questioning whether existing laws can be directly applied to digital contexts [26][27] Group 4 - The concept of virtual property is explored, indicating a shift from ownership to access, where users often do not possess full rights over digital content, leading to a rental-like relationship with platforms [32][38][45] - The article discusses how user agreements typically grant platforms significant control over user-generated content, often limiting users' rights to transfer or inherit accounts [50][54][56] Group 5 - The nature of digital labor is described as fragmented and modular, with platforms exerting control over workers without traditional employment relationships, raising questions about labor rights and protections [74][76][78] - The article points out ongoing disputes regarding labor classification and the adequacy of existing legal frameworks to address the unique challenges posed by gig economy jobs [78][80] Group 6 - The article concludes by emphasizing the need for ongoing dialogue among stakeholders, including individuals, platforms, and governments, to address the evolving challenges of the digital economy [84][85] - It suggests that future discussions should focus on balancing efficiency with individual rights and dignity, particularly in the context of flexible employment and fair distribution of resources [85][86]

在现代社会，人类并不缺乏规制技术发展的手段，缺少的是能够促进社会福祉的治理手段。换言之，在 规制技术的同时，需要做到既不影响技术的创新发展，又不损害国家、社会和他人的合法权益。对AI 进行治理，要求其履行内容标识义务，目的即是为了实现社会福祉的最大化。同时，人工智能的广泛应 用还可能导致个人利益和社会公共利益之间的冲突，为实现最大多数人的最大幸福，就应当平衡该利益 冲突。在这种情况下，国家既应维护公共利益，又需保护个人权益，对技术所施加的限制尽可能地保持 在最低限度，以不妨害个体最大限度地追求幸福。 在人工智能全面介入信息生产的背景下，未标识的AI内容不仅可能消解真实与虚构的边界，削弱公共 讨论的理性基础，而且会导致责任主体的模糊，加剧法律追责与权利救济的困难。现行制度通过强制内 容标识，在技术效率与风险防控之间建立平衡机制。从成本收益分析看，标识义务的履行并不会给企业 增加实质性负担，其成本远远低于提供智能服务所带来的社会收益。对智能服务提供者而言，标识系统 能够增强产品可信度，可避免因内容失实导致的声誉损失和法律处罚。对于智能服务使用者而言，明确 标识既能规避欺诈指控，也有助于建立负责任的技术使用形象。此 ...