Forgive them Lord, for they know nothing about the target of their legislation. 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/25/tech/tiktok-user-reaction-hearing/index.html

TikTok users are making fun of Congress members for their questions to app CEO Shou Chew

TikTok creators have had enough of Congress seemingly not understanding how the internet works.

…   “There needs to be an age limit in Congress,” one caption by user @rachelhannahh said about a clip of US Rep. Buddy Carter, who represents Georgia’s 1st district, asking Chew whether the app tracks pupil dilation as a form of facial recognition to drive algorithms.

Chew responded by saying the app does not use body, face or voice data to identify users, and the only face data the app collects is for “filters to have sunglasses on your face.”

Robots got rights! 

https://researchportal.helsinki.fi/en/publications/robotics-ai-and-criminal-law-crimes-against-robots

Robotics, AI and Criminal Law. Crimes Against Robots

This book offers a phenomenological perspective on the criminal law debate on robots.  Today, robots are protected in some form by criminal law.  A robot is a person’s property and is protected as property.  This book presents the different rationale for protecting robots beyond the property justification based on the phenomenology of human-robot interactions.  By focusing on robots that have bodies and act in the physical world in social contexts, the work provides an assessment of the issues that emerge from human interaction with robots, going beyond perspectives focused solely on artificial intelligence (AI).  Here, a phenomenological approach does not replace ontological concerns, but complements them.  The book addresses the following key areas: Regulation of robots and AI; Ethics of AI and robotics; and philosophy of criminal law.

It will be of interest to researchers and academics working in the areas of Criminal Law, Technology and Law and Legal Philosophy.

We have to answer these questions.

https://www.elgaronline.com/display/book/9781035310869/book-part-9781035310869-35.xml

Chapter 21: AI machines as inventors: The role of human agency in patent law

In recent years, there has been growing concern about the detrimental impact that artificial intelligence (AI) machines are having on patent law.  While these accounts rest on a simple historical claim, namely that AI machines create novel and unprecedented problems for the law, they are largely ahistorical.  To begin the process of rectifying this oversight, this chapter examines one of the assumptions that is supposedly being challenged by AI-machines, namely the idea that inventorship in patent law is an exclusively human activity.  To do this, I look at the strategies US patent law used in the early to mid-part of the twentieth century to embrace the non-human agency associated with the generation of organic chemical compounds and what this means for AI machines as inventors.