In this episode, lawyer and Mind Matters News contributor Richard W. Stevens is on the show to discuss the legal issues and challenges around copyright, fair use, and the use of copyrighted material by AI systems. They discuss the implications of a recent Supreme Court case, Warhol vs. Goldsmith, that tackles the legal concepts of “derivative work” and “transformative work.” Read More ›
I recently received an email invitation from Google to try Gemini Pro in Bard. There was an accompanying video demonstration of Bard’s powers, which I didn’t bother watching because of reports that a Gemini promotional video released a few days earlier had been faked. After TED organizer Chris Anderson watched the video, he tweeted, “I can’t stop thinking about the implications of this demo. Surely it’s not crazy to think that sometime next year, a fledgling Gemini 2.0 could attend a board meeting, read the briefing docs, look at the slides, listen to every one’s words, and make intelligent contributions to the issues debated? Now tell me. Wouldn’t that count as AGI?” Legendary software engineer Grady Booch replied, “That demo Read More ›
The trial of Sam Bankman-Fried, the former CEO of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX, is underway in Manhattan. Investors in FTX lost billions of dollars earlier this year, but Bankman-Fried is denying alleged fraud and misuse of funds. However, prosecutors are accusing him of systematically stealing those funds and channeling them unto personal means. A bombshell witness, Caroline Ellison, Bankman-Fried’s ex-girlfriend and a “top executive” in his business, took the stand earlier this month and supported the criticisms of the prosecution. David Gura writes for NPR, Though other former top executives at FTX businesses are testifying during the trial, Ellison was always considered the most important witness. After prosecutors first called her to the witness stand, everyone stood and faced the Read More ›
New York Times reporters watched the hearing in federal district court in New York on June 8, 2023, which they then described: In a cringe-inducing court hearing, a lawyer who relied on A.I. to craft a motion full of made-up case law said he “did not comprehend” that [ChatGPT] could lead him astray. Lawyer Who Used ChatGPT Faces Penalty for Made Up Citations – The New York Times (nytimes.com) The reporters got most of it right but even they erred. The lawyer involved did not write a “motion,” he filed a sworn declaration opposing a motion to dismiss. The difference matters: Declarations are under oath, so the lawyer swore to the truth of ChatGPT lies. Looking at the actual court Read More ›
The major science journals are growing increasingly hard left politically. The prestigious journal Science, in particular, has swallowed progressive ideology–including supporting the “nature rights” movement. The rights of nature–which include geological features–are generally defined as the right to “exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution.” Nature is, of course, not sentient. So, this campaign is really about granting environmental extremists legal standing to enforce their policy desires through litigation as legal guardians serving nature’s best interests. But the movement has a problem. It is clearly ideological rather than rational. So now, three law professors and a biologist writing in Science urge scientists to promote the agenda by giving courts a scientific pretext to enforce nature rights laws, or even, impose the Read More ›
In a recent article, Professor Robert J. Marks reported how artificial intelligence (AI) systems had made false reports or gave dangerous advice: Prof. Marks suggested that instead of having government grow even bigger trying to “regulate” AI systems such as ChatGPT: How about, instead, a simple law that makes companies that release AI responsible for what their AI does? Doing so will open the way for both criminal and civil lawsuits. Strict Liability for AI-Caused Harms Prof. Marks has a point. Making AI-producing companies responsible for their software’s actions is feasible using two existing legal ideas. The best known such concept is strict liability. Under general American law, strict liability exists when a defendant is liable for committing an action Read More ›
Artificial intelligence can give unintended and dangerous advice. What is the best way to keep things like the following from happening? ChatGPT falsely reported on a claim of sexual harassment that was never made against me on a trip that never occurred while I was on a faculty where I never taught. ChatGPT relied on a cited Post article that was never written and quotes a statement that was never made by the newspaper. Who’s responsible for these actions? How can AI be controlled to assure such careless responses are eliminated? Read on and you’ll see the answer is obvious. Attorney and Bradley Center Fellow Richard W. Stevens has talked about legal options of Professor Turley in a defamation lawsuit. But what about the Read More ›
One Superior Court judge has warned that many cases don’t come down to information alone, which is all AI can do. Law professor David DeWolf also expresses concern about increasing dependence upon law—a form of coercion—to regulate human behavior, a choice that is irrelevant to the growth of AI in the courtroom.
Read More ›