will AI obliterate the rule of law?
the core objection is that so far, many generative AI products are based on massive violations of law. If generative AI companies want to compete against human artists by legal means—they’re welcome to do so. But in many cases, that’s not what they’ve chosen. As a professional artist, I’m not opposed to advancements in technology; I’m opposed to violations of the law.
...machines often have “free rein” legally. This axiom made sense when a machine was primarily understood as a tool wielded by a human. This distinction has gotten murkier, however, as machines have moved into roles traditionally reserved to human judgment.
...by delegating reading to a legally impervious machine—the “literate robot”—human actors avoid the usual legal scrutiny that would apply to their actions. In so doing, copyright law is essentially neutralized. He foresees this remaining a tremendous incentive for humans to “outsource” reading to machines that are not treated as legally culpable agents. Even to the point of annihilating human reading altogether.
...If AI companies are allowed to market AI systems that are essentially black boxes, they could become the ultimate ends-justify-the-means devices. Before too long, we will not delegate decisions to AI systems because they perform better. Rather, we will delegate decisions to AI systems because they can get away with everything that we can’t. You’ve heard of money laundering? This is human-behavior laundering. At last—plausible deniability for everything.