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.
https://www.pogowasright.org/warrantless-drone-surveillance-lawsuit-appealed-to-michigan-supreme-court/
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?
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mattis-Jacobs-2/publication/364666895_Reexamining_computer_ethics_in_light_of_AI_systems_and_AI_regulation/links/63568ebc96e83c26eb4ccc44/Reexamining-computer-ethics-in-light-of-AI-systems-and-AI-regulation.pdf
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.
https://www.theinformation.com/articles/students-are-using-ai-text-generators-to-write-papers-are-they-cheating
Students
Are Using AI Text Generators to Write Papers—Are They Cheating?
