那些看似不重要卻互相矛盾的地方，就是細節裡的魔鬼
本法所稱人工智慧，指具自主運行能力之系統，該系統透過輸入或感測，經由機器學習及演算法，可為明確或隱含之目標實現預測、內容、建議或決策等影響實體或虛擬環境之產出。
***所以人腦也算嗎？
定義很重要，當主體的對象是人，這整份草案便能夠被解讀成「政府對人民的思想控制」—裴七***
根據經濟合作暨發展組織（OECD）二○一九年公布之人工智慧建議書對 AI 的定義：
An AI system is a machine-based system that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions that can influence physical or virtual environments. —《**Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence 8》(OECD Legal Instruments, 2019)**
<aside>
人工智慧之研發與應用，應在兼顧社會公益及數位平權之前提下，發展良善治理，並遵循下列原則：
二、人類自主性：應支持人類自主權，尊重人格權等個人基本權利與文化價值，並允許人類監督，落實以人為本並尊重法治及民主價值觀。
***所以原本沒打算讓人類做監督？而是讓機器交互檢驗數據？***
於第二款定明人類自主性原則 ，應支持人類自主權（Human Autonomy），並尊重人格權（含姓名、肖像、聲音）等個人基本權利與文化價值，確保以人為本之基本價值。
AI actors should respect the rule of law, human rights, democratic and human-centred values throughout the AI system lifecycle. These include non-discrimination and equality, freedom, dignity, autonomy of individuals, privacy and data protection, diversity, fairness, social justice, and internationally recognised labour rights. This also includes addressing misinformation and disinformation amplified by AI, while respecting freedom of expression and other rights and freedoms protected by applicable international law. —《**Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence 8》*(OECD Legal Instruments, 2019)*
<aside>
三、隱私保護及資料治理：應妥善保護個人資料隱私，避免資料外洩風險，並採用資料最小化原則；在符合憲法隱私權保障之前提下，促進非敏感資料之開放及再利用。
***所以人類的憲法是個資的唯一保障嗎？
但是草案第一條的定義如若成立，憲法與人工智慧法到底該以誰為主？***
Adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed (‘data minimisation’) — (GDPR, 2018)
<aside>
Consent should only be used to justify collection of data in cases where it can be appropriately and meaningfully given. —《The Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights》(Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights | OSTP | The White House, 2023)
<aside>