Rather severe, but it would solve some problems…

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6046996

Cognitive Relationality: Evaluating Automation in the Administration of Law

Rapid advances in artificial intelligence (AI) technologies raise urgent questions about whether, and how, they should be integrated in institutions like the judiciary and parliament. To answer those questions, this paper presents a normative theory of cognitive relationality: that the administration of law is, and should be, understood as cognitive acts mediated through relationships between Parliament, the courts, lawyers and the public. Cognition and relationality are necessary and desirable features of Westminster and Westminster-esque common law legal systems like in Australia, Singapore and New Zealand, to ensure that Parliament, judges and lawyers comply with the standards expected of them by the public, and to ensure the public can effectively participate in the legal system. This theory suggests AI use should be limited to uses that do not supplant the cognitive relational core of actions that administer the law. Accordingly, without comprehensive verification (which may render efficiency gains negligible) Parliament should not engage AI in the process of public consultation, document summary and legislation drafting; judges should not involve AI in research, summarisation of evidence and submissions, or decision drafting; and lawyers should not involve AI in the direct or indirect production of materials for clients or the courts.

That’s one way, I guess.

https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/icsiaiml-25/126021169

A Jurisprudential Analysis of Conundrum of Authorship and Generative AI through the Prism of Copyright Laws

The proliferation of generative artificial intelligence (AI) presents a foundational challenge to copyright law, disrupting traditional legal doctrines centered on human creators. This paper addresses the jurisprudential problem of AI authorship by first examining established legal philosophies, primarily John Locke's "sweat of the brow" doctrine and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's personality theory, to frame the historical context of human-centric copyright. Building on this theoretical base, the analysis proceeds to a comparative study of landmark judicial decisions and legislative frameworks across various jurisdictions, revealing the global complexities and divergent approaches to accommodating AI-generated works. Based on these findings, the paper concludes with specific policy suggestions aimed at creating a balanced legal environment. We propose the establishment of a sui generis right for entirely AI-generated works to foster innovation without granting full copyright protection. Additionally, we recommend mandatory transparency protocols and clearer guidelines for determining "human creative control" to manage this hybrid creative ecosystem, ensuring that human ingenuity remains at the core of intellectual property rights..