![]() “If the legislature gets involved too early with whatever the technology is today, tomorrow, it’s going to look different, and whatever laws they enacted are probably going to be the wrong laws.Kubrick not only predicted the rise of our obsession with artificial intelligence, he facilitated the generation of movie after movie exploring the subject. ![]() “It’s almost impossible to foresee what’s going to happen, because the technology is continually changing, continually being updated. “Technology is always out ahead of the law, right? People who are being innovative and creating new technologies tend not to be thinking about regulation or about the social impact,” Burk said. Judges will make rulings and if there’s enough of a common theme that points to a change in the law, or if courts aren’t taking it in the direction people and lawmakers think it should be going, then Congress can step in. As the courts gain experience handling cases involving generative AI, they may be able to provide greater guidance and predictability in this area through judicial opinions.”īurk said this is a more prudent approach, as opposed to trying to amend the law or propose new laws like the EU. The Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan shared staff to congressional committees and members themselves, wrote a letter on the topic of AI in copyright law earlier this year and said lawmakers do have the option of considering amendments to the Copyright Act or other legislation.īut the service added, “Given how little opportunity the courts and Copyright Office have had to address these issues, Congress may wish to adopt a wait-and-see approach. He predicted as the technology gets litigated around the country and the world, the blame is probably going to fall on the people who designed the machine, or Congress will write a law protecting them from liability as it did with Section 230 and social media companies.īut considering how Congress is still working on regulating other types of technology like social media platforms, concrete federal law may be a faraway solution. It’s following its programming, the statistical model that it has of its data.” “It has no awareness, no cognition, no idea of itself. This is not your science fiction movie, this is not your favorite Star Trek or Star Wars robot,” he said. Some people are asking if a machine can be considered an inventor, but Burk said asking those questions misses the point. The issue is working its way through the courts. law doesn’t quite determine who’s responsible for harm put out by a robot, chatbot or unaware, unconscious being. But people will sue over these harms, and current U.S. However, the “who’s responsible?” question remains to be answered, and Burk said the requirement of intent is what’s going to separate these everyday, accidental damage situations from cybercrimes like deepfakes, misinformation and defrauding someone since prosecutors can argue those in court and a jury can decide if someone meant to harm another with AI.Īs we’ve covered, there’s harm AI can cause that humans can’t even foresee yet. It will just be more obvious that our mind always created the world that makes it suffer.” AI is not photography.” Just as photography replaced painting in the reproduction of reality, AI will replace photography,” he wrote in a description. The artist, Boris Eldagsen, won, but declined the first-place award, stating, “They are different entities. The piece looks like an old photograph with two women, one crouching behind the other. One artist highlighted this by submitting an AI-generated piece, called The Electrician, to the World Photography Organization’s Sony World Photography Awards. ChatGPT and programs like it are able to generate new texts, images and other content – but they’re trained to generate these works by being exposed to large quantities of existing works. Other lawyers say a creative plaintiff’s lawyer could argue AI programmers didn’t deploy proper safeguards to ensure “journalistic” standards.Īnother murky area is copyright law. He suggested a new approach could be something like disclaiming a product’s liability, but it’s never been done before with technology like this.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |