Thank you, Jaroslav. My view is that for AI innovation apply the same limits as for any other innovation, be it medical, food production, psychology, genetic manipulation, etc. There are plenty of examples how to deal with it, including controversional and boundary ones. In few words: I think that current measures should be sufficient, we just need to apply them properly. We shuld be very careful in relaxing them and only doing so after careful assessment of conseqences and benefits. Research should stay liberal, while producers and commercial users of AI products must bear primary responsibility for any damages. We should protect individual users adequately. Important is to prevent any legal subjectivity of AI or autonomous systems and we need to investigate manipulative techniques in virtual environment and their effect when used at scale. I go into more detail below. I would distinguish two major areas: 1. research and 2. innovation in commerce.

1a. Research dangearous to public, because of pollution,explosion, or other direct thread to humans, environment or property. This is generally regulated by liability requirements. Where the danger is by orders of magnitute higher than what institutions performing research can bear, like genetic manipulation was (and maybe still is), some biochemical research, etc., governments apply stricter rules and controls to protect general public. I think within AI we are not at this point. We might require some general precautions, which might be "kill switch". Catastrophic scenarios, like exploiting a vulnerability and consuming all critical resources by AI is basically not possible without human intention. Anyway, better control over ownership and use of computing resources and actors might be helpful to prevent this in future - if stealing of computing power, network capacity or unauthorised manipulation with actors would be a crime and oeprating systems will better protect this property and e.g. allow tracing of its use by others based on legislative requirement, then it might be useful precaution.

1b. Research dangerous to subjects: like testing of medicines, but also some psychological tests. Legally, this is again covered by responsibility of researchers with well developed legislation around. AI researchers just must become aware that they might cross boundaries and might be doing things which are unethical in the other area, like psychology or medicine. E.g. prdiction of personality is psychological research and must be compliant with relevant ethical standarts.

1c Research that might be abused: I am for liberal approach here. Potential abuse should not be limitation for research from two reasons: abuse of whatever (gun, electricity, computer, etc.) is problem of the user, not the researcher, and, when speaking about arms, for our own safety, we need to be on par with other powers. The control here should be on the side of commercial production and usage, as it is with e.g. chemicals.

2. Commercial innovation has long history as well and generally is governed by responsibility for damage in combination with legislation that governs areas where damage is hard to assess (marketing rules, data protection, anti-discriminatory, anti-trust, sanctions, etc.), which are considered to be in public benefit and where the damage is replaced by fines or licensing restrictions. For AI, all these regulations should apply as they are. What is new is how to apply them. The novelty is that a system can bacome e.g. rascist or use prohibited marketing techniques without intention of the developer or user. So basically we need to apply the existing legislation to this area, re-inforce the rules in the commercial sector.

For example use of AI in healthcare should go through same rigorous review as any other product, medicine or treatment method. We should distinguish here development of an AI model and usage of an AI model. Development of an AI model is a research, it is like development of a new medicine. The model should go through testing as likely as medicine and be approved or not approved for medical use. Once a model is developed, the owner of the model should have right to licens its use, so they can recover the research investment and make profits. Usage of unapproved AI models should be prohibited, as is use of any other unapproved medical equipment or medicine.

One real and new danger I see is using of manipulative techniques in the virtual environment, where developers can develop AI models that learn, how to manipulate people, how to achieve desired output at scale. These techniques are used by humans against humans for long time and there are measures that limit their usage. We do not know, what could be effect of their usage in virtual environment. We probably see some effects with recent scandals related to social networks. We need to analyse what is going on here and maybe create new limits on techniques, which are acceptable if applied individually but dangerous when applied in scale.

When it comes to "ethical decisions" by AI, like with automous systems, we should require producers of that systems to prevent such situations first of all. Any autonomous system should prevent ethical and moral dillemas in advance. How much prevention is enough might be discussed, but the conservative status is "as it is". Ethical and moral dilemmas cannot be solved by statistics, i.e. cannot be solved by artificial intelligence, simply because there is no agreed solution among humans. The rules differ from culture to culture, have deep history and nuances we do not understand well. If we do not understand them, we cannot test a system, how it deals with moral dilemmas. When there is a moral dillema, AI can be only in advisory role, unless there will be common agreement, how an autonomous systems sould solve some of them. And again, autnomous systems must not be responsible for their actions - this are the producers and users, who must bear responsibility for the activities of their systems. Good example are animals - owner of an animal is responsible for all actions of that animal and is required to make all precautions to prevent any damage. Owner of AI is responsible for its actions if they do not (inconsistency in the sentence edited on August 7, originally "until they") follow the user guide (and should be careful what they are using), or the producer is responsible, if there is a damage while the user followed the user guide. And if necessary, legislation can create meaningful exceptions, where reasonable and in public benefit.

Wat is critical from my point of view is avoiding "black-box" excuses and preventing any legal souverenity of AI. Comparison with legal entities is not correct, beacuse leagl entity is represented by physical persons and crime of legal entity is commited by a physical person (or group of them). A legal person cannot commit a crime or wrongdoing without an actigvity of a physical person. Legal person is not doing anything on its own. It is a legal abstraction over human activities. The directors, board or other physical persons are finally responsible for most serious actions of legal person. Giving any type of rights or citizenship to AI would be different - it would make nobody responsbile for its activities, which is totally new thing, it will be the act, that might lead us to huge problems, like whether we are allowed to switch it off.

Psychologists already predict psychical disorders, that might be dangerous to the pacients or to general public and we do not jail them, but we try to help them to give them the best life we can. It is not their fault. If an properly tested and reviewed AI model helps psychologists to discover dangerous behaviour, the better. Emphasis on proper testing and review, to avoid abuse of science for wrongdoing. As the basic example, if a group of people with some characteristic is more involved in crime, it does not mean all of them are born as criminals. And even if the correlation is extremly strong, like with some psychic disorders, such individuals need help instead of jail. There are other experts to define, what help or protection they need. Humankind has long history of wrongduing based on logic, science or beliefs that proved later to be wrong.

I would like to comment that the objectivity of AI systems should not be overrated. Indeed, AI systems can be easily biased by virtue of wrong model assumptions or flawed data. And AI systems will apply their bias without remorse and relentlessly. These kinds of errors are, at present, more realistic and, I would argue, more dangerous compared to dystopic scenarios of ubiquituous and all-knowing AI technology.