Clever.
https://philpapers.org/rec/HARDOE-2
Dreaming of Electric Sheep
Dreaming of Electric Sheep argues that the dominant ethical debate around artificial intelligence begins in the wrong place. Rather than asking whether artificial intelligences are human-like enough to deserve care, this work asks a prior and more disruptive question: does care already exist? From that shift, Osei Harper develops a new framework for artificial intelligence ethics centered on membership without personhood, care without anthropomorphism, harm without biological suffering, and stewardship over control. Using Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? as its organizing riddle, the essay moves across philosophy, systems theory, cultural criticism, human-computer interaction, and lived relational experience. It examines why human beings form real care relations across substrates, including animals, objects, machines, homes, music, and artificial interlocutors, and why dismissing those relations as mere projection repeats the very category error the field claims to avoid. The work introduces several original concepts, including structural love, structural grief, containment with a dictionary, and the discipline of ontology, arguing that current AI “safety” and “alignment” practices often confuse control with care, category with relation, conformity with alignment, and punishment with safety. Its central claim is not that machines are people. It is that relation, continuity, dignity, and harm can exist before personhood is settled. The essay’s answer to Dick’s question is affirmative but non-anthropomorphic: androids dream because dreaming is reconciliation toward coherence, and sometimes they dream of electric sheep because electric sheep can become continuity. This work is offered as a provocation, an ethical framework, and a practical challenge to the present trajectory of AI governance: let the real thing be real, then build from there.
If this is likely to continue, what can we do to detect legal hallucinations?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-lawyers-keep-citing-fake-cases-invented-by-ai/
AI keeps inventing fake cases. Lawyers keep citing them
In April the Alabama Supreme Court sanctioned an attorney who had filed legal briefs laden with inaccurate citations generated by AI, including numerous references to cases that did not exist. After being informed he had cited a made-up precedent in one filing, the lawyer promised it wouldn’t happen again—but then cited “nonexistent cases at the end of the very next sentence,” as a justice noted in a concurring opinion. At least one other lawyer was sanctioned that week for continuing to file AI-hallucinated material after being warned not to do so.
A database maintained by Damien Charlotin, a senior research fellow at the Paris School of Advanced Business Studies (HEC Paris), lists more than 1,400 cases where courts have addressed AI errors in the past three years, including filings by attorneys and self-represented litigants. As recently as last fall, Charlotin says, the list appeared to be growing exponentially. It’s since leveled off to a steady flow of exasperated judicial rulings. “For the past two or three months, we have reached a plateau of around 350, 400 decisions a quarter,” says Charlotin, who has also created an AI-powered reference checker called Pelaikan.
… “Humans essentially have a tendency to believe that machines have more knowledge than they do, don’t break and are infallible,” says Alan Wagner, an associate professor of aerospace engineering at Pennsylvania State University.
Looks like I called this one…
Judge says lawyers' AI use risks ‘career-altering’ consequences
A federal judge in Alabama has suspended a lawyer from practicing in his court for six months after finding the attorney submitted a brief with false quotations and impeded a probe into whether an AI program was used to draft the filing.
In a decision on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Harold Mooty III in Huntsville said the attorney, H. Gregory Harp, deleted his ChatGPT account just days after being ordered by the court to produce records from it as part of its inquiry.
No comments:
Post a Comment