I see trouble ahead…

https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/ihrlr/vol7/iss1/2/

The Expanding Digital Border: AI, Surveillance, and the Fight for Justice

As artificial intelligence transforms the mechanisms of immigration control, the modern border has become a digital filter—one governed less by geography and more by code. This Article examines the legal, technical, and ethical implications of AI-driven systems now central to global border enforcement, including biometric surveillance, algorithmic risk scoring, and predictive profiling. It explores how states use these technologies not only to manage irregular migration, but to compete for global talent—constructing migration regimes that reward capital and compliance while eroding transparency, due process, and equality.

Through an international and comparative lens, the piece highlights the expansion of algorithmic decision-making across jurisdictions, revealing how AI systems increasingly operate beyond judicial scrutiny and with little accountability. The legal foundations for border exceptionalism—sovereignty, discretion, and national security—are now being repurposed to justify opaque automation, often with disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations.

The Article argues that traditional constitutional and human rights frameworks must evolve to meet the challenges of AI governance at the border. It outlines practical steps for attorneys and policymakers, including redefining "search" in the digital age, requiring algorithmic warrants, mandating human oversight, and building enforceable audit standards. It calls for cross-border legal-technical collaboration and international safeguards that ensure data mobility does not eclipse human dignity.

Ultimately, the Article contends that AI at the border is not merely a technical innovation but a constitutional inflection point—testing whether the rule of law can withstand the pressures of automated governance. The battle for liberty will not be fought in streets or courtrooms alone, but in the architecture of the digital border itself. And in that fight, freedom’s survival will depend on whether humanity still believes it is worth the uncertainty that safety cannot bear.

AI has no incentive to create? But it’s programmed in! (Same for humans?)

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0730031X261430482

Can Artificial Intelligence-Generated Inventions Be Protected by Patent Law?

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has enabled machines to autonomously generate technical solutions, thereby challenging the foundational assumptions of patent law. In this context, can AI-generated inventions be protected by patent law? There is a great controversy in the global academic community about this issue. One side advocates for protection, while the other opposes. There are two main reasons for the above controversy. First, scholars have different opinions on the subject of who completed the AI-generated inventions: Is it a person or a machine that completed such invention? Second, there is controversy over whether AI-generated inventions need to be incentivized. In the face of these controversies, it should be noted that humans play a core role in the creation of AI-generated inventions, and there is a need for incentives for AI-generated inventions. Therefore, it should be affirmed that AI-generated inventions can be protected by patent law. However, this does not mean that all AI-generated inventions can be protected by patent law: only when sufficient human intervention requirements are met can the invention be protected.

Worth a thought?

https://lawandworld.ge/index.php/law/article/view/954

Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Decision-Making: Can a Robot Replace a Judge?

This article examines the concept of the “robot judge” and evaluates the legal, ethical, and human rights implications of using artificial intelligence in judicial decision-making. The study explores whether AI can partially or fully perform judicial functions and assesses the extent to which algorithmic tools may be integrated into courts without undermining the fundamental principles of justice. The article is based on doctrinal legal analysis, comparative review, and a human-rights-oriented approach. It distinguishes between administrative automation, decision-support systems, and fully automated adjudication, arguing that these forms of technological involvement raise different levels of legal concern. The paper demonstrates that AI may offer important benefits for judicial systems, including greater efficiency, faster case processing, improved consistency, and enhanced access to justice, especially in repetitive or low-value disputes. At the same time, the article identifies serious risks associated with algorithmic bias, lack of transparency, limited explainability, accountability gaps, and threats to the right to a fair trial. Attention is given to the relationship between AI and judicial discretion, emphasizing that legal reasoning is not a purely mechanical exercise but a process involving interpretation, contextual evaluation, proportionality, and moral judgment. The article concludes that AI should not replace human judges in the exercise of final judicial authority. A legally acceptable model is the use of AI as a supportive instrument under meaningful human supervision, clear regulatory safeguards, transparency requirements, and effective mechanisms of review. Such an approach best reconciles technological innovation with the rule of law and the protection of human dignity.