It’s hard to keep track so articles like this are useful.

https://jsp-ls.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/california_legal_studies_journal_2023.pdf#page=15

Science vs. The Law: How Developments in Artificial Intelligence Are Challenging Various Civil Tort Laws

For centuries, the law has been playing catch-up as science pushes the boundaries of how we define both society and our own realities. Today, artificial intelligence (AI) perhaps poses the biggest challenges the legal system has ever faced. This paper aims to explore many of the numerous ways in which artificial intelligence developments are actively pushing the boundaries of contemporary civil law, challenging lawyers and judges alike to rethink the law as they know it. It first offers a general overview of artificial intelligence as well as some relevant legal fields: negligence, product liability, fault information, invasion of privacy, and copyright. Then, it dives into the specifics of how artificial intelligence is challenging these fields. Each section will introduce a new field in which artificial intelligence is rapidly changing the game, explain the benefits and pitfalls of said use of AI, introduce the relevant legal field and its policies, and then explore the challenges that AI is causing to the law and how, if at all, that legal field is adapting to those challenges.

It seems we need an example greater than Russia’s attacks on the Ukraine?

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/hsgconference/2023/foreign_policy/13/

The Future of the Cyber Theater of War

Few could imagine how it would develop when the air was the new theater of war. The literature showcases that a lack of imagination and state-level institutionalized power structures, particularly in the U.S., hampered the progress of air as a new theater of war both in thought and application. Today, a similar lack of imagination on the cyber theater of war is a great source of insecurity in the world system; it sets the stage for strategic shocks like the ones to the U.S. on December 7, 1941, and 9/11. To avoid this, states should imagine how a convergence of cyber technologies into new weapons could be used in war and by whom. Popular movies today form the basis for considering what has yet to be realized in the cyber theater of war. Its nascent history and designation as a theater of war foreshadow the expectation that eventual traditional war will occur in the cyber realm. When nanocomputers, artificial intelligence, quantum computing, speed, and advanced robotics fully converge, new weapons are possible and likely. The Just War Theory, understood through the Christian lens rather than only as a matter of secular international law, is applied to the evolving cyber theater of war to fill current doctrinal gaps in the just cause and conduct of future war within the cyber realm.

AI is too human to be considered a person?

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43545-023-00667-x

Hybrid theory of corporate legal personhood and its application to artificial intelligence

Artificial intelligence (AI) is often compared to corporations in legal studies when discussing AI legal personhood. This article also uses this analogy between AI and companies to study AI legal personhood but contributes to the discussion by utilizing the hybrid model of corporate legal personhood. The hybrid model simultaneously applies the real entity, aggregate entity, and artificial entity models. This article adopts a legalistic position, in which anything can be a legal person. However, there might be strong pragmatic reasons not to confer legal personhood on non-human entities. The article recognizes that artificial intelligence is autonomous by definition and has greater de facto autonomy than corporations and, consequently, greater potential for de jure autonomy. Therefore, AI has a strong attribute to be a real entity. Nevertheless, the article argues that AI has key characteristics from the aggregate entity and artificial entity models. Therefore, the hybrid entity model is more applicable to AI legal personhood than any single model alone. The discussion recognises that AI might be too autonomous for legal personhood. Still, it concludes that the hybrid model is a useful analytical framework as it incorporates legal persons with different levels of de jure and de facto autonomy.

Government by ChatBot? What evidence will I have to keep when the ChatBot says I no longer have to pay taxes?

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4444869

Automated Agencies

When individuals have questions about federal benefits, services, and legal rules, they increasingly seek help from government chatbots, virtual assistants, and other automated tools. Most scholars who have studied artificial intelligence and federal government agencies have not focused on the government’s use of technology to offer guidance to the public. The absence of scholarly attention to automation as a means of communicating government guidance is an important gap in the literature. Through the use of automated legal guidance, the federal government is responding to millions of public inquiries each year about the law, a number that may multiply many times over in years to come. This new form of guidance is thereby shaping public views of and behavior with respect to the law, without serious examination.

This Article describes the results of a qualitative study of automated legal guidance across the federal government. This study was conducted under the auspices of the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), an independent federal agency of the U.S. government charged with recommending improvements to administrative process and procedure. Our goal was to understand federal agency use of automated legal guidance, and offer recommendations to ACUS based on our findings. During our study, we canvassed the automated legal guidance activities of all federal agencies. We found extensive use of automation to offer guidance to the public by federal agencies, with varying levels of sophistication and legal content. We identified two principal models of automated legal guidance, and we conducted in-depth legal research regarding the most sophisticated examples of such models. We also interviewed agency officials with direct, supervisory, or support responsibility over well-developed automated legal guidance tools.

We find that automated legal guidance offers agencies an inexpensive way to help the public navigate complex legal regimes. However, we also find that automated legal guidance may mislead members of the public about how the law will apply in their individual circumstances. In particular, automated legal guidance exacerbates the tendency of federal agencies to present complex law as though it is simple without actually engaging in simplification of the underlying law. While this approach offers advantages in terms of administrative efficiency and ease of use by the public, it also causes the government to present the law as simpler than it is, leading to less precise advice and potentially inaccurate legal positions. In some cases, agencies heighten this problem by, among other things, making guidance seem more personalized than it is, ignoring how users may rely on the guidance, and failing to adequately disclose that the guidance cannot be relied upon as a legal matter. At worst, automated legal guidance enables the government to dissuade members of the public from accessing benefits to which they are entitled, a cost that may be borne disproportionately by members of the public least capable of obtaining other forms of legal advice.

In reaching these conclusions, we do not suggest that automated legal guidance is uniquely problematic relative to alternative forms of communicating the law. The question of how to respond to complex legal problems, in light of a public that has limited ability or inclination to understand complex legal systems, is a difficult one. There are different, potential solutions to this problem, which each present their own series of cost-benefit tradeoffs. However, failure to appreciate, or even examine, the tradeoffs inherent in automated legal guidance, relative to the alternatives, undermines our ability to make informed decisions about when to use which solution, or how to minimize the costs of this form of guidance.

In this Article, after exploring these challenges, we chart a path forward. We offer policy recommendations, organized into five categories: transparency; reliance; disclaimers; process; and accessibility, inclusion, and equity. We believe that our descriptive as well as theoretical work regarding automated legal guidance, and the detailed policy recommendations that flow from it, will be critical for evaluating existing, as well as future, government uses of automated legal guidance.