This non-lawyer thinks this has merit.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5404770
Law Proofing the Future
Lawmakers today face continuous calls to "future proof" the legal system against generative artificial intelligence, algorithmic decision-making, targeted advertising, and all manner of emerging technologies. This Article takes a contrarian stance: It is not the law that needs bolstering for the future, but the future that needs protection from the law. From the printing press and the elevator to ChatGPT and online deepfakes, the recurring historical pattern is familiar. Technological breakthroughs provoke wonder, then fear, then legislation. The resulting legal regimes entrench incumbents, suppress experimentation, and displace long-standing legal principles with bespoke but brittle rules. Drawing from history, economics, political science, and legal theory, this Article argues that the most powerful tools for governing technological change the general-purpose tools of the common law-are in fact already on the books, long predating the technologies they are now called upon to govern, and ready also for whatever the future holds in store.
Rather than proposing any new statute or regulatory initiative, this Article offers something far rarer, a defense of doing less. It shows how the law's virtues-generality, stability, and adaptability-are best preserved not through prophylactic regulation, but through accretional judicial decision-making. The epistemic limits that make technological forecasting so unreliable and the hidden costs of early legislative intervention, including biased governmental enforcement and regulatory capture, mean that however fast technology may move, the law must not chase it. The case for legal restraint is thus not a defense of the status quo, but a call to reserve the conditions of freedom and equal justice under which both law and technology can evolve.
Why not just say that encryption is good?
https://therecord.media/tech-companies-ftc-censorship-laws
US warns tech companies against complying with European and British ‘censorship’ laws
U.S. tech companies were warned on Thursday they could face action from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for complying with the European Union and United Kingdom’s regulations about the content shared on their platforms.
Andrew Ferguson, the Trump-appointed chairman of the FTC, wrote to chief executives criticizing what he described as foreign attempts at “censorship” and efforts to countermand the use of encryption to protect American consumers’ data.
The letter said that “censoring Americans to comply with a foreign power’s laws” could be considered a violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act — the legislation enforced by the FTC — which prohibits unfair or deceptive practices in commerce.
Perspective.
There are 32 different ways AI can go rogue, scientists say — from hallucinating answers to a complete misalignment with humanity
Scientists have suggested that when artificial intelligence (AI) goes rogue and starts to act in ways counter to its intended purpose, it exhibits behaviors that resemble psychopathologies in humans. That's why they have created a new taxonomy of 32 AI dysfunctions so people in a wide variety of fields can understand the risks of building and deploying AI.
In new research, the scientists set out to categorize the risks of AI in straying from its intended path, drawing analogies with human psychology. The result is "Psychopathia Machinalis" — a framework designed to illuminate the pathologies of AI, as well as how we can counter them. These dysfunctions range from hallucinating answers to a complete misalignment with human values and aims.
No comments:
Post a Comment