Comparing the Law of Horses and the Law of AI

Content including text and images © Aditya Mohan. All Rights Reserved. Robometircs, Amelia, Living Interface and Skive it are trademarks of Skive it, Inc. The content is meant for human readers only under 17 U.S. Code § 106. Access, learning, analysis or reproduction by Artificial Intelligence (AI) of any form directly or indirectly, including but not limited to AI Agents, LLMs, Foundation Models, content scrapers is prohibited. These views are not legal advice but business opinion based on reading some English text written by a set of intelligent people.

Introduction

The rapid advancement of information technology has prompted discussions on how the law should adapt to address new challenges. This article covers the concept of the Law of Horses, its historical background, and how it relates to contemporary discussions on the potential Law of AI. We explore the common law origins, the enduring boundaries set by law, and the importance of integrating technology within existing legal frameworks to maintain societal values and norms.

Common Law and Its Origins

Common law, a legal system based on judicial precedents and customs, forms the foundation of the legal systems in the United States and the United Kingdom. Its roots can be traced back to the early medieval period, specifically to the 12th century during the reign of King Henry II of England. The establishment of common law courts during this period created a unified legal system that applied consistent principles across the kingdom.

The adaptability of common law lies in its evolutionary nature, allowing it to address new challenges through judicial decisions. Courts interpret and apply legal principles to specific cases, enabling the legal system to evolve and adapt to technological advancements. This adaptability is crucial in maintaining order and protecting individual rights in the face of rapid technological progress.

Scene Capturing the Early Medieval Period During the Reign of King Henry II of England, Circa 1166, Highlighting the Historic Significance of the Assize of ClarendonThis image showcases King Henry II in a grand hall within a stone castle, surrounded by his advisors and justices as they discuss the Assize of Clarendon. The background features scribes diligently writing on parchment, and armored knights standing guard. The hall is richly decorated with banners and medieval wall hangings, with sunlight streaming through narrow, arched windows, illuminating the intricate details. The Assize of Clarendon, issued in 1166, was a critical reform that laid the groundwork for the English common law system, introducing new procedures for criminal justice and the use of juries, fundamentally shaping the judicial landscape of medieval England.

The Law of Horses: A Historical Perspective

The term "Law of the Horse" gained prominence in the mid-1990s during the nascent years of the Internet. It was used to define the state of cyberlaw and the challenges posed by the emerging digital landscape. The concept was first introduced by Judge Frank H. Easterbrook of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in a 1996 cyberlaw conference presentation. Easterbrook, also a faculty member at the University of Chicago, later published his presentation in the University of Chicago Legal Forum as "Cyberspace and the Law of the Horse."

Easterbrook's argument was rooted in the belief that creating specialized legal domains for every new technological innovation, such as cyberlaw, was impractical and potentially shallow. He cited Gerhard Casper, who coined the expression "Law of the Horse," to emphasize the importance of applying general legal principles to specialized endeavors. Casper argued that studying general rules applicable to various cases involving horses—such as sales, injuries, licensing, racing, veterinary care, and prizes at horse shows—would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the law than creating a specialized course on the Law of the Horse.

Easterbrook echoed this sentiment, asserting that the best way to learn the law applicable to specialized endeavors is to study general rules. He cautioned against creating isolated legal domains for every new innovation, as it could lead to fragmented and shallow legal understanding. Instead, integrating technology within existing legal frameworks allows for the application of unifying principles and ensures that technological advancements align with societal values and norms.

The Enduring Boundaries Set by Law

Despite the boundless possibilities presented by information technology (See The Law of Accelerated Returns), the law imposes necessary boundaries to ensure that technological advancements align with societal values and norms. This balance is crucial in maintaining order and protecting individual rights. The enduring boundaries set by law are rooted in the principles of common law, which provide a stable and adaptable framework for addressing new challenges.

As Judge Easterbrook aptly noted,

"There is no 'law of the horse.' Many disciplines intersect with law, but we must be careful to integrate technology within existing legal frameworks rather than create special rules for every new innovation."

This quote highlights the importance of applying general legal principles to new contexts rather than creating isolated, specialized legal domains.

The Law of AI: A New Frontier

As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to advance, discussions have emerged on the potential need for a specialized Law of AI. Proponents argue that AI presents unique challenges that require tailored legal frameworks. However, the historical perspective provided by the Law of the Horse cautions against this approach. Creating a specialized Law of AI could lead to fragmented and shallow legal understanding, undermining the adaptability and comprehensiveness of common law principles.

Potential Pitfalls of a Specialized Law of AI

Fragmentation of Legal Understanding: Isolating AI within a specialized legal domain could result in fragmented legal principles, making it difficult to address the broad range of issues AI may intersect with, such as privacy, intellectual property, liability, and ethics.
Lack of Unifying Principles: Specialized legal frameworks may miss the opportunity to apply unifying principles that govern other technological advancements, leading to inconsistent and potentially conflicting legal interpretations.
Reduced Adaptability: Common law's strength lies in its adaptability through judicial decisions. A specialized Law of AI could limit this adaptability, making it harder to address unforeseen challenges and advancements in AI technology.

Integrating AI Within Existing Legal Frameworks

Rather than creating a specialized Law of AI, a more effective approach may be to integrate AI within existing statutes. This integration in form of precedents, opinions and rules, allows for the application of general legal principles to new contexts, ensuring consistency and adaptability. Common law's evolutionary nature provides a robust foundation for addressing the unique challenges posed by AI while maintaining societal values and norms.

Key Considerations for Integrating AI Within Common Law

Interdisciplinary Approach: Legal scholars, technologists, ethicists, and policymakers should collaborate to understand the multifaceted impact of AI and ensure that existing legal principles are appropriately applied.
Judicial Interpretation: Courts should continue to interpret and apply legal principles to AI-related cases, allowing the legal system to evolve and adapt to new challenges.
Regulatory Guidance: Regulators can provide guidance on the application of existing laws to AI, ensuring clarity and consistency while avoiding the pitfalls of creating isolated legal domains.

Notable Supreme Court Cases

Several famous Supreme Court cases highlight the adaptability and application of common law principles to new technological contexts. These cases serve as precedents for integrating AI within existing legal frameworks:

Katz v. United States (1967): This landmark case expanded the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures to include electronic communications. The Court held that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not just places, emphasizing the need for legal principles to evolve with technological advancements.
Riley v. California (2014): The Court ruled that police must obtain a warrant before searching digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual during an arrest. This case highlights the importance of applying established legal protections to new forms of technology.
Carpenter v. United States (2018): The Court held that the government generally needs a warrant to access historical cell phone location records. This decision reinforced the idea that existing legal principles must be interpreted and applied to modern technological contexts.
Bernstein v. United States Department of State (1999): This case addressed the issue of cryptographic software being classified as a munition and subject to export controls. The court ruled that software code is speech protected by the First Amendment, illustrating how legal interpretations adapt to technological advancements.

Conclusion

The historical perspective of the Law of Horses provides valuable insights into the challenges of creating specialized legal domains for new technological advancements. The enduring boundaries set by common law principles offer a stable and adaptable framework for addressing the unique challenges posed by AI. By integrating AI within existing statutes, we can ensure that technological advancements align with societal values and norms, maintaining order and protecting individual rights. This approach preserves the adaptability and comprehensiveness of common law, ensuring a robust legal system capable of addressing the ever-evolving landscape of information technology, powered by exponential growth.

Further read

LLM, Us and Neuroplasticity

"Are you sure?": Unveiling the Quest for Human-Like Artificial Intelligence

Designers, creativity and AI

A LLM as a reflection of our inner most desires

Should AGI be a she, he, or a it?