The development of network technology has contributed to the intergenerational change of the network. In the Internet 3.0 stage with big data as the core, the role and status of the network in crime has changed, and the criminal law attribute of the network has evolved from the traditional object and tool of crime to the field space and way of existence of cybercrime. The manifestations of cybercrime have also evolved accordingly. While the trend of traditional crime being networked has been strengthened, new forms of crime such as artificial intelligence crime have emerged. On the basis of comparing the difference between the harmfulness evaluation of cybercrime and traditional crime, cybercrime can be divided into three types: cybercrime types whose harmfulness evaluation is equivalent to traditional crime, cybercrime types whose online and offline harmfulness evaluation deviates, and a new type of cybercrime centered on network big data, the latter being especially represented by artificial intelligence crimes. The legal issues of artificial intelligence impact the human-centered legal system, and put forward new propositions for criminal law.
The development of big data, cloud computing and artificial intelligence technology means the arrival of a new era of risk. Thecriminal law has made effective legislative responses to crimes that use the internet as a tool or an object, but it is not effective in regulating cybercrimes in the era of big data, responding poorly to crimes that use the internet as a space, and has not yet responded to crimes that use the internet as the essence of existence. The criminal law lacks a risk mechanism for dealing with new types of cybercrimes. First, it is insufficient to deal with new cybersecurity risks with the content of big data system security, algorithm security, and data and information security. At the same time, in the process of legislation and regulation of cybercrime, the criminal law has paid necessary attention to the computer information system, but it is out of balance with the protection of legal interests of network security, especially that network public security and data information security have not been given necessary attention. The criminal law should make legislative adjustments, establish the concept of risk criminal law, and carry out criminal prevention of network security risks and technical risks in the era of big data. The legislative protection of legal interests in network public security should be clarified, and its connotation includes cyberspace data and information-based content. A network security legal interests protection system should be established, and new charges to regulate new types of cybercrimes should be added. The tool attribute and non-subjectivity of artificial intelligence in cybercrime should be clarified, and the fault liability for the use of controllable artificial intelligence for crime and the supervision fault liability of self-controlling artificial intelligence crimes should be established. By choosing appropriate paths and legislative techniques, the criminal law can respond to cybercrimes.