What happens when ChatGPT doesn’t just generate false information but also slanderous and potentially harmful responses? And in legal matters, who is responsible for AI? Robert J. Marks and legal expert Richard W. Stevens discuss these topics and more in this week’s podcast episode. Additional Resources
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 ›
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 ›
Can you believe it? USA Today, the national news outlet, on May 4, 2023, declared (italics added): It’s the end of the world as we know it: ‘Godfather of AI’ warns nation of trouble ahead. Before digging out and playing your 1987 REM album, ask yourself: Is this headline true – and what do we do now? The USA Today article mitigates the doom timeframe from imminent to someday in paragraph one (italics added): One of the world’s foremost architects of artificial intelligence warned Wednesday that unexpectedly rapid advances in AI – including its ability to learn simple reasoning – suggest it could someday take over the world and push humanity toward extinction. Within a day, the Arizona Republic ran Read More ›
Recently, a piece of art called “Théâtre D’opéra Spatial” took home the first-place prize at the Colorado State Fair’s fine art competition in the category of digital arts/digitally manipulated photography. The art was generated using AI. Can AI hold a copyright? Can a human hold a copyright for a piece of artwork that they used AI to generate? Robert J. Read More ›
Should a computer program ever be listed as an inventor of a patent? Would AI have any right to sue for patent infringement? The US Patent Office has ruled that only “natural persons” can own patents, not machines, but should that change? Robert J. Marks discusses patent law and artificial intelligence with attorney and author, Richard W. Stevens. Additional Resources Read More ›
A new invention has to produce unexpected or surprising new results that were not anticipated by existing technology in order to be patented. Can computers generate something outside the explanation or expectation of the programmer? Robert J. Marks discusses patent law, creativity, and artificial intelligence with attorney and author, Richard W. Stevens. Additional Resources
