I would probably argue the opposite.
https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/44188
Artificial Intelligence & the Machine-ation of the Rule of Law
In this dissertation, I argue that the Rule of Law is made vulnerable by technological innovations in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) that take power previously delegated to legal decision-makers and put it in the hands of machines. I assert that we need to interrogate the potential impacts of AI and ML in law: without careful scrutiny, AI and ML's wide-ranging impacts might erode certain fundamental ideals. Our constitutional democratic framework is dependent upon the Rule of Law: upon a contiguous narrative thread linking past legal decisions to our future lives. Yet, incursions by AI and ML into legal process – including algorithms and automation; profiling and prediction – threaten longstanding legal precepts in state law and constraints against abuses of power by private actors. The spectre of AI over the Rule of Law is most apparent in proposals for "self-driving laws," or the idea that we might someday soon regulate society entirely by machine. Some academics have posited an approaching "legal singularity," in which the entire corpus of legal knowledge would be viewed as a complete data set, thereby rendering uncertainty obsolete. Such "regulation by machine" advocates would then employ ML approaches on this legal data set to refine and improve the law. In my view, such proposals miss an important point by assuming machines can necessarily outperform humans, without first questioning what such performance entails and whether machines can be meaningfully said to participate in the normative and narrative activities of interpreting and applying the law. Combining insights from three distinct areas of inquiry – legal theory, law as narrative scholarship, and technology law – I develop a taxonomy for analysing Rule of Law problems. This taxonomy is then applied to three different technological approaches powered by AI/ML systems: sentencing software, facial recognition technology, and natural language processing. Ultimately, I seek the first steps towards developing a robust normative framework to prevent a dangerous disruption to the Rule of Law.
An extreme example on many levels.
Warrantless Drone Surveillance Lawsuit Appealed to Michigan Supreme Court
Matt Powers reports:
Can the government pilot a low-flying drone over your property without a warrant and then use the evidence against you in court? That’s the question at the heart of an application for appeal filed with the Michigan Supreme Court today on behalf of Todd and Heather Maxon. For two years, the government flew a sophisticated drone over Todd and Heather Maxons’ property to take detailed photographs and videos, all without ever seeking a warrant. Now, the Maxons, represented by the Institute for Justice (IJ), are asking the Michigan Supreme Court to hold that the government violated their Fourth Amendment rights and can’t use its illegally obtained photos and videos to punish them in court.
Read more at Institute for Justice.
Ethics are ethics, no matter where applied…
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13347-022-00591-7
To Each Technology Its Own Ethics: The Problem of Ethical Proliferation
Ethics plays a key role in the normative analysis of the impacts of technology. We know that computers in general and the processing of data, the use of artificial intelligence, and the combination of computers and/or artificial intelligence with robotics are all associated with ethically relevant implications for individuals, groups, and society. In this article, we argue that while all technologies are ethically relevant, there is no need to create a separate ‘ethics of X’ or ‘X ethics’ for each and every subtype of technology or technological property—e.g. computer ethics, AI ethics, data ethics, information ethics, robot ethics, and machine ethics. Specific technologies might have specific impacts, but we argue that they are often sufficiently covered and understood through already established higher-level domains of ethics. Furthermore, the proliferation of tech ethics is problematic because (a) the conceptual boundaries between the subfields are not well-defined, (b) it leads to a duplication of effort and constant reinventing the wheel, and (c) there is danger that participants overlook or ignore more fundamental ethical insights and truths. The key to avoiding such outcomes lies in a taking the discipline of ethics seriously, and we consequently begin with a brief description of what ethics is, before presenting the main forms of technology related ethics. Through this process, we develop a hierarchy of technology ethics, which can be used by developers and engineers, researchers, or regulators who seek an understanding of the ethical implications of technology. We close by deducing two principles for positioning ethical analysis which will, in combination with the hierarchy, promote the leveraging of existing knowledge and help us to avoid an exaggerated proliferation of tech ethics.
(Related) Is this article in agreement or not?
Reexamining computer ethics in light of AI systems and AI regulation
This article argues that the emergence of AI systems and AI regulation showcases developments that have signifcant implications for computer ethics and make it necessary to reexamine some key assumptions of the discipline. Focusing on designand policy-oriented computer ethics, the article investigates new challenges and opportunities that occur in this context. The main challenges concern how an AI system’s technical, social, political, and economic features can hinder a successful application of computer ethics. Yet, the article demonstrates that features of AI systems that potentially interfere with successfully applying some approaches to computer ethics are (often) only contingent, and that computer ethics can infuence them. Furthermore, it shows how computer ethics can make use of how power manifests in an AI system’s technical, social, political, and economic features to achieve its goals. Lastly, the article outlines new interdependencies between policy- and design-oriented computer ethics, manifesting as either conficts or synergies.
Inevitable.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4252778
All Rise for the Honourable Robot Judge? Using Artificial Intelligence to Regulate AI
There is a rich literature on the challenges that AI poses to the legal order. But to what extent might such systems also offer part of the solution? China, which has among the least developed rules to regulate conduct by AI systems, is at the forefront of using that same technology in the courtroom. This is a double-edged sword, however, as its use implies a view of law that is instrumental, with parties to proceedings treated as means rather than ends. That, in turn, raises fundamental questions about the nature of law and authority: at base, whether law is reducible to code that can optimize the human condition, or if it must remain a site of contestation, of politics, and inextricably linked to institutions that are themselves accountable to a public. For many of the questions raised, the rational answer will be sufficient; but for others, what the answer is may be less important than how and why it was reached, and whom an affected population can hold to account for its consequences.
My take: The tools exist, who else will teach students how to use them? This seems similar to saying that math students should never use calculators.
Students Are Using AI Text Generators to Write Papers—Are They Cheating?
No comments:
Post a Comment