I don't get the impression, from this report on El Reg, that the paper had any kind of rational way to define criminality. Without that the AI has no rational starting point., even before you start on trying to recognise it (whatever "it" is) with AI. And I don't think there ever could be one. Because it is defined by the laws that are broken Would such an AI, for example, be able to include rich people who hide their company's income and profits through a whole string of shell companies? Would the AI change in some magical way when a dodgy practice that enables tax evasion is outlawed and the actions become suddenly criminal. Or reverse itself when an activity is decriminalised. Or when a person crosses a border between localities when any given activity is or is not legal. Is the 18 year old who legally drinks in one US state somehow changed when they visit one where 21 is the age? Does the change occur as they cross the border? Or only if they lift a glass of alcohol to their lips?
i.e. There is no objective thing called criminality. Criminality is a breach of the law, whether wilful or not, whether the law is justifiable or not, whether the law is significant or not. And breach of that law remains criminality even if the law is later repealed as unjustifiable. It's a status, not a state of being.
And at what point does criminality make one a criminal . One offence? Two? Three?
I'm a criminal, I definitely drank before I was 18. I once tried an illegal substance, I'm sure I accidentally went through a red light once. I've definitely walked out of a shop with a newspaper and forgot to pay once. I frequently, as a kid and within the age of criminal responsibility, jumped off a bus without paying. And I've got on and off a bus while it was still moving!!!
And I'm equally sure that I've breached a few other laws (when was the one about archery practice repealed?).