Comparing the Law of Horses and the Law of AI
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.
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
From Infinite Improbability to Generative AI: Navigating Imagination in Fiction and Technology
Human vs. AI in Reinforcement Learning through Human Feedback
Generative AI for Law: The Agile Legal Business Model for Law Firms
Generative AI for Law: From Harvard Law School to the Modern JD
Unjust Law is Itself a Species of Violence: Oversight vs. Regulating AI
Generative AI for Law: Technological Competence of a Judge & Prosecutor
Law is Not Logic: The Exponential Dilemma in Generative AI Governance
Generative AI & Law: I Am an American Day in Central Park, 1944
Generative AI & Law: Title 35 in 2024++ with Non-human Inventors
Generative AI & Law: Similarity Between AI and Mice as a Means to Invent
Generative AI & Law: The Evolving Role of Judges in the Federal Judiciary in the Age of AI
Embedding Cultural Value of a Society into Large Language Models (LLMs)
Lessons in Leadership: The Fall of the Roman Republic and the Rise of Julius Caesar
Justice Sotomayor on Consequence of a Procedure or Substance
From France to the EU: A Test-and-Expand Approach to EU AI Regulation
Beyond Human: Envisioning Unique Forms of Consciousness in AI
Protoconsciousness in AGI: Pathways to Artificial Consciousness
Artificial Consciousness as a Way to Mitigate AI Existential Risk
Human Memory & LLM Efficiency: Optimized Learning through Temporal Memory
Adaptive Minds and Efficient Machines: Brain vs. Transformer Attention Systems
Self-aware LLMs Inspired by Metacognition as a Step Towards AGI