Interesting approach…

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4432941

From Ethics to Law: Why, When, and How to Regulate AI

The past decade has seen a proliferation of guides, frameworks, and principles put forward by states, industry, inter- and non-governmental organizations to address matters of AI ethics. These diverse efforts have led to a broad consensus on what norms might govern AI. Far less energy has gone into determining how these might be implemented — or if they are even necessary. This chapter focuses on the intersection of ethics and law, in particular discussing why regulation is necessary, when regulatory changes should be made, and how it might work in practice. Two specific areas for law reform address the weaponization and victimization of AI. Regulations aimed at general AI are particularly difficult in that they confront many ‘unknown unknowns’, but the threat of uncontrollable or uncontainable AI became more widely discussed with the spread of large language models such as ChatGPT in 2023. Additionally, however, there will be a need to prohibit some conduct in which increasingly lifelike machines are the victims — comparable, perhaps, to animal cruelty laws.

(Related)

https://read.dukeupress.edu/the-minnesota-review/article-abstract/2023/100/118/351618/Co-creating-with-AI

Co-creating with AI

The concept of “co-creation” is particularly timely because it reframes the ethics of who creates, how, and why, not only interpreting the world but seeking to change it through a lens of equity and justice. An expansive notion, co-creation embraces a constellation of methods, frameworks, and feedback systems in which projects emerge out of process and evolve from within communities and with people, rather than being made for or about them. Co-creation, we contend, offers a hands-on heuristic to explore the expressive capacities and possible forms of agency in systems that have already been marked as candidates for some form of consciousness. In this article, we ask if humans can co-create with nonhuman systems and, more specifically, artificial intelligence (AI) systems. To find out, we interviewed more than thirty artists, journalists, curators, and coders, specifically asking about their relationships with the AI systems with which they work. Their answers often reflected a broader spectrum of co-creation, expanding the social conversation and complicating issues of agency and nonagency, technology and power, for the sake of human and nonhuman futures alike.

Does this require personhood? Can you punish a tool?

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-29860-8_6

Punishing the Unpunishable: A Liability Framework for Artificial Intelligence Systems

Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly taking over the day-to-day activities of human beings as a part of the recent technological revolution that has been set into motion ever since we, as a species, started harnessing the potential these systems have to offer. Even though legal research on AI is not a new phenomenon, due to the increasing “legal injuries” arising out of commercialization of AI, the need for legal regime/framework for the legal accountability of these artificial entities has become a very pertinent issue that needs to be addressed seriously. This research paper shall investigate the possibility of attaching civil as well as criminal liability to AI systems by analysing whether mens rea can be attributed to AI entities and, if so, what could be the legal framework/model(s) for such proposed culpability. The paper acknowledges the limitations of the law in general and criminal law in particular when it comes to holding AI systems criminally responsible. The paper also discusses the legal framework/legal liability model(s) that could be employed for extending the culpability to AI entities and understanding what forms of “punishments” or sanctions would make sense for these entities.

Eventually we will need to address the constitution and all the amendments.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4431251

Artificial Intelligence and the First Amendment

Artificial intelligence (AI), including generative AI, is not human, but restrictions on the activity or use of AI, or on the dissemination of material by or from AI, might raise serious first amendment issues if those restrictions (1) apply to or affect human speakers and writers or (2) apply to or affect human viewers, listeners, and readers. Here as elsewhere, it is essential to distinguish among viewpoint-based restrictions, content-based but viewpoint-neutral restrictions, and content-neutral restrictions. Much of free speech law, as applied to AI, is in the nature of “the law of the horse”: established principles of multiple kinds applied to a novel context. But imaginable cases raise unanswered questions, including (1) whether AI as such has constitutional rights, (2) whether and which person or persons might be a named defendant if AI is acting in some sense autonomously, and (3) whether and in what sense AI has a right to be free from (for example) viewpoint-based restrictions, or whether it would be better, and correct, to say that human viewers, listeners, and readers have the relevant rights, even if no human being is speaking. Most broadly, it remains an unanswered question whether the First Amendment protects the rights of human viewers, listeners, and readers, seeking to see, hear, or read something from AI.

An AI is people?

https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr-online/vol80/iss6/1/

The Perks of Being Human

The power of artificial intelligence has recently entered the public consciousness, prompting debates over numerous legal issues raised by use of the tool. Among the questions that need to be resolved is whether to grant intellectual property rights to copyrightable works or patentable inventions created by a machine, where there is no human intervention sufficient to grant those rights to the human. Both the U. S. Copyright Office and the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office have taken the position that in cases where there is no human author or inventor, there is no right to copyright or patent protection. That position has recently been upheld by a federal court. This article argues that the Constitution and current statutes do not compel that result, that the denial of protection will hinder innovation, and that if intellectual property rights are to be limited to human innovators that policy decision should be made by Congress, not an administrative agency or a court.

In other words, will there ever be a robot Pope?

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09539468231172006

Could a Conscious Machine Deliver Pastoral Care?

Could Artificial Intelligence (AI) play an active role in delivering pastoral care? The question rests not only on whether an AI could be considered an autonomous agent, but on whether such an agent could support the depths of relationship with humans which is essential to genuine pastoral care. Theological consideration of the status of human-AI relations is heavily influenced by Noreen Herzfeld, who utilises Karl Barth's I-Thou encounters to conclude that we will never be able to relate meaningfully to a computer since it would not share our relationship to God. In this article, I look at Barth's anthropology in greater depth to establish a more comprehensive and permissive foundation for human-machine encounter than Herzfeld provides—with the key assumption that, at some stage, computers will become conscious. This work allows discussion to shift focus to the challenges that the alterity of the conscious computer brings, rather than dismissing it as a non-human object. If we can relate as an I to a Thou with a computer, then this allows consideration of the types of pastoral care they could provide.