will AI obliterate the rule of law?

Apr 01, 2023


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.

↑ up