What do you expect from Forrest Gump and Associates?

https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/27/23739913/chatgpt-ai-lawsuit-avianca-airlines-chatbot-research

A lawyer used ChatGPT and now has to answer for its ‘bogus’ citations

Lawyers suing the Colombian airline Avianca submitted a brief full of previous cases that were just made up by ChatGPT, The New York Times reported today. After opposing counsel pointed out the nonexistent cases, US District Judge Kevin Castel confirmed, “Six of the submitted cases appear to be bogus judicial decisions with bogus quotes and bogus internal citations,” and set up a hearing as he considers sanctions for the plaintiff’s lawyers.

Lawyer Steven A. Schwartz admitted in an affidavit that he had used OpenAI’s chatbot for his research. To verify the cases, he did the only reasonable thing: he asked the chatbot if it was lying.

Can I be compelled to explain the trade secret functions of my AI?

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230512167W/abstract

The Case Against Explainability

As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more prevalent there is a growing demand from regulators to accompany decisions made by such systems with explanations. However, a persistent gap exists between the need to execute a meaningful right to explanation vs. the ability of Machine Learning systems to deliver on such a legal requirement. The regulatory appeal towards "a right to explanation" of AI systems can be attributed to the significant role of explanations, part of the notion called reason-giving, in law. Therefore, in this work we examine reason-giving's purposes in law to analyze whether reasons provided by end-user Explainability can adequately fulfill them. We find that reason-giving's legal purposes include: (a) making a better and more just decision, (b) facilitating due-process, (c) authenticating human agency, and (d) enhancing the decision makers' authority. Using this methodology, we demonstrate end-user Explainabilty's inadequacy to fulfil reason-giving's role in law, given reason-giving's functions rely on its impact over a human decision maker. Thus, end-user Explainability fails, or is unsuitable, to fulfil the first, second and third legal function. In contrast we find that end-user Explainability excels in the fourth function, a quality which raises serious risks considering recent end-user Explainability research trends, Large Language Models' capabilities, and the ability to manipulate end-users by both humans and machines. Hence, we suggest that in some cases the right to explanation of AI systems could bring more harm than good to end users. Accordingly, this study carries some important policy ramifications, as it calls upon regulators and Machine Learning practitioners to reconsider the widespread pursuit of end-user Explainability and a right to explanation of AI systems.

Change the law so the AI is never guilty. (Sounds like an AI generated idea…)

https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jolti/vol14/iss2/1/

Corporate Fiduciary Duty in the Age of Algorithms

The Age of Algorithms will soon have a seismic impact on fiduciary law and thus, on the fiduciary duty of directors and officers. On one hand, corporate fiduciaries will have access to Artificial Intelligence-based tools which may make their jobs more efficient, more accurate, and more effective. As a result, fulfilling fiduciary duties will be easier, and the use of these tools may significantly lower the exposure of corporate fiduciaries to claims of breaching fiduciary duties. However, artificial intelligence (AI) may be a double-edged sword because those attractive tools will create new standards corporate fiduciaries must meet to fulfill their fiduciary duties. At the same time, the risks and limitations of algorithm-based products will mean that fiduciaries who delegate their decision-making to AI tools will face new claims of fiduciary breaches. Corporate fiduciaries might resign from those roles rather than face these new AI-based legal hazards, and AI-tool developers could decide to withdraw from this market rather than face an avalanche of breach of fiduciary duty claims. To mitigate these risks, the jurisprudence of corporate fiduciary law must be modernized and clarified to establish new but understandable fiduciary obligations and protections for corporate fiduciaries.

Must a robot treat another robot ethically?

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-32439-0_44

A Code of Ethics for Social Cooperative Robots

The article addresses the interaction between Robots supported by Artificial Intelligence and interacting with each other for collaborative and social purposes and proposes the establishment of a code of ethics also for those contexts in which the intersubjective relationship is only between Machines and does not involve interaction with Humans. This proposal poses the problem of which ethics to apply and how to program robots to learn a behavior that makes possible a social interaction between Machines that is respectful of tasks, rights, and duties. The first dilemma regards whether it is legitimate to apply human ethics to a society of machines alone. This scenario would result in a society of Machines completely modeled on human society, which offers advantageous, but also problematic sides. For the second aspect, the investigation is a true propaedeutic to the programming and engineering design in the construction of Machines predisposed to Ethical Acting. In this case, the results of the survey will be able to support and guide the technology in the design of the Machine, highlighting which elements to give absolute priority to create a device that contains, in nuce, the predisposition to Ethical Acting.

Is a “Turing positive” result sufficient to guarantee a right to life?

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43681-023-00296-3

Artificial intelligence’s right to life

The right to life is fundamental and primary and is a precondition for exercising other rights (Ramcharan in Ramcharan (ed), The right to life in International Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, 1985). Its universal recognition in the arena of international law is associated with the concept of a human being endowed with inherent and inalienable dignity. Categorization of the circle of entities covered with the right to life today seems obvious and indisputable. Intense development of artificial intelligence, also the fact that it has passed the Turing test which checks AI’s thinking ability in a way similar to human reasoning, inspires a reflection on AI’s future legal status. This study will investigate a thesis of whether artificial intelligence may be entitled to the right to life. The analysis will be carried out around an exploratory question: what are the requirements for being afforded protection of the right to life?

Tools & Techniques. (You may need an AI to search for AI tools.)

https://www.makeuseof.com/online-directories-of-ai-tools-search-app/

6 Online Directories of AI Tools to Discover or Search for the Best AI App

These free directories list all the AI tools available online, so you can browse or search for them quickly and easily.