Introducing bias by using familiar rather than accurate terms.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11245-023-09934-1
The Ethics of Terminology: Can We Use Human Terms to Describe AI?
Despite facing significant criticism for assigning human-like characteristics to artificial intelligence, phrases like “trustworthy AI” are still commonly used in official documents and ethical guidelines. It is essential to consider why institutions continue to use these phrases, even though they are controversial. This article critically evaluates various reasons for using these terms, including ontological, legal, communicative, and psychological arguments. All these justifications share the common feature of trying to justify the official use of terms like “trustworthy AI” by appealing to the need to reflect pre-existing facts, be it the ontological status, ways of representing AI or legal categories. The article challenges the justifications for these linguistic practices observed in the field of AI ethics and AI science communication. In particular, it takes aim at two main arguments. The first is the notion that ethical discourse can move forward without the need for philosophical clarification, bypassing existing debates. The second justification argues that it’s acceptable to use anthropomorphic terms because they are consistent with the common concepts of AI held by non-experts—exaggerating this time the existing evidence and ignoring the possibility that folk beliefs about AI are not consistent and come closer to semi-propositional beliefs. The article sounds a strong warning against the use of human-centric language when discussing AI, both in terms of principle and the potential consequences. It argues that the use of such terminology risks shaping public opinion in ways that could have negative outcomes.
(Related)
https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.06499
Defining and Explorting the Intelligence Space
Intelligence is a difficult concept to define, despite many attempts at doing so. Rather than trying to settle on a single definition, this article introduces a broad perspective on what intelligence is, by laying out a cascade of definitions that induces both a nested hierarchy of three levels of intelligence and a wider-ranging space that is built around them and approximations to them. Within this intelligence space, regions are identified that correspond to both natural – most particularly, human – intelligence and artificial intelligence (AI), along with the crossover notion of humanlike intelligence. These definitions are then exploited in early explorations of four more advanced, and likely more controversial, topics: the singularity, generative AI, ethics, and intellectual property.
A duty to use?
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4477704
Why Law Firms Must Responsibly Embrace Generative AI
In this article, we explore the compelling reasons why law firms should responsibly embrace generative artificial intelligence (GAI). We believe doing so is imperative for the future of the legal profession and provide several real-world examples of how organizations, including law firms, are already successfully leveraging GAI. We highlight the many advantages GAI can bring to the legal field, but also confront the common arguments against its adoption. Our analysis includes strategies for mitigating these risks, as well as supporting evidence for why a complete ban on GAI technology is not justified. Most importantly, we articulate how law firms can effectively manage these risks by following organizational best practices, adhering to legal and ethical standards, and using GAI responsibly.
A cautionary tale. No supervision?
Lawyer's Affidavit in the Colorado AI-Hallucinated Precedent Case
Thanks to the invaluable UCLA Law Library, I got a copy of the affidavit in which the lawyer apologizes and explains why he used ChatGPT to draft a motion:
(Related) This is usually on the other coast...
N.J. takes stab at regulating and policing AI and the harm caused by ‘deepfakes’
Lawmakers in New Jersey are attempting to regulate and police the use of Artificial Intelligence in certain cases with a collection of bills that have prompted some Republicans to raise concerns about the potential harm to free speech.
The state Assembly Judiciary Committee on Thursday voted along party lines to advance three Democratic-sponsored bills aimed at criminalizing the creation and distribution of deceptive media known as “deepfakes.”
One of the measures (A5511) would prohibit the creation or disclosure of deceptive audio or visual media in certain circumstances, while a second bill (A5510) would criminalize the distribution of intentionally deceptive media within 90 days of an election.
Toward inevitable personhood.
https://nigerianjournalsonline.com/index.php/IRLJ/article/view/3346
A RESPONSE TO SOME RANDOM THOUGHTS ON LEGAL PERSONALITY AND SUBJECTNESS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ENTITIES
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is one of the dynamically developing and promising digital technologies. The use of AI, for instance, makes it possible to transfer the industrial segment of the economy to a new technological level. It results in the increase of economic efficiency of industrial enterprises and can radically transform existing social, economic, financial and industrial ecosystems. However, as the use of technologies based on AI becomes more widespread, the number of associated incidents grows as well, indicating that AI are not mere objects whose operation is influenced by others. Regardless of the exceptional operating principle of AI entities, none of the legal systems has recognized AI as subjects of law. It is trite that AI entities are capable of learning from their own personal experience leading to independent conclusions and autonomous decision-making. Systems of AI are different from other regular computer algorithms due to their uniqueness in their capacity to learn and act independently of the will of their developers or programmers. Therefore, failure to manage this technology can lead to major concerns such as moral, ethical issues and problems. This paper considered some random thoughts on whether AI entities can be called subjects of law and drew a response. This paper made use of doctrinal method of analysis data gathered from primary sources such as case laws, legislation, statutes and secondary sources such as books and journal articles. It was discovered that extant laws are not sufficient to capture the operations of AI entities. There is too no accurate definition of the AI concept. The study recommended the granting of legal personality, even if fictionally, on AI entities based on their autonomy and independence, just as the case with corporations.
No comments:
Post a Comment