The interplay between law and technology has been a driving force in shaping modern society. While technology propels us forward with unprecedented innovations, the law provides the necessary framework to guide, regulate, and sometimes even accelerate technological advancement. This article explores how technological developments—like the repeatability introduced by computer science pioneer Alan Turing—have interacted with legal principles and statutes. It examines how the law sets boundaries based on social norms and adapts to new challenges posed by emerging technologies like artificial intelligence (AI).

Repeatability: The Birth and Exponential Growth of Computer Science

The mid-20th century marked a significant turning point with the birth of computer science, largely attributed to Alan Turing's pioneering work. In his seminal 1950 paper, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," Turing introduced the concept of a universal machine capable of performing any computation. This not only laid the groundwork for modern computing but also made information technology scientific and more repeatable.

"We can only see a short distance ahead, but we can see plenty there that needs to be done."
— Alan Turing

Repeatability and Scalability Leading to Exponential Growth

Turing's emphasis on repeatability and standardization in computing allowed technological innovations to be replicated, enabling them to scale and grow consistently at an unprecedented pace. This repeatability is the foundation for the rapid scaling of information technology, leading to what futurist Ray Kurzweil termed the "Law of Accelerated Returns."According to this principle, technological progress accelerates exponentially because each new advancement builds upon the ones before it.

"An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense intuitive linear view."
— Ray Kurzweil

This exponential pace necessitated the development of legal frameworks that could help regulate the swift technological advancements. While the law did not make technology repeatable, it responded to this repeatability by crafting regulations that navigate technology in the right direction so that technological growth can continue accelerating. This ensured that innovations were not just isolated achievements but part of a scalable and expanding technological landscape that helped society evolve with the technology. The legal system itself had to evolve to accommodate not just current technologies but also future developments, fostering an environment where technology could flourish without stepping on societal growth.

Read more: Exponential Technology vs. Linear Biology

Boundaries: Law as a Social Compass

While technology pushes the boundaries of what is possible, the law serves as a critical counterbalance that defines what is acceptable within society. Laws are proactive instruments shaped by social norms, ethics, and collective values. They set boundaries to ensure that technological advancements align with the moral and social fabric of society.

Common Law

Historical Roots and Evolution

Common Law, originating in England after the Norman Conquest of 1066, is one of the oldest legal systems still in use today. By the 12th century, under King Henry II, it began to formalize. He established royal courts and sent itinerant justices throughout the kingdom to administer a unified set of laws, replacing disparate local customs with a common legal framework.

"The Common Law is the will of mankind issuing from the life of the people."
— Woodrow Wilson

Flexibility Through Precedent

A hallmark of Common Law is its reliance on judicial decisions and the doctrine of stare decisis, meaning "to stand by things decided." This system allows the law to adapt organically as judges interpret statutes and apply previous rulings to new cases.

"The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience."
— Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

Setting Boundaries Based on Social Norms

Common Law evolves with society, reflecting changes in social attitudes and norms. For instance, as societal views on privacy have shifted, so too has the legal interpretation of privacy rights. This adaptability ensures that even as technology introduces new possibilities, the law can impose boundaries that reflect contemporary values.

Validation of Collective Principles

The longevity and resilience of Common Law validate its effectiveness in governing society through shared principles. It acts as a living document, continually revised through judicial decisions to meet the needs of the time.

"Law grows, and though the principles of law remain unchanged, yet ... new relations and conditions of the society may require new applications of those principles."
— Sir Frederick Pollock

Napoleonic Code

Formation and Global Influence

Enacted in 1804, the Napoleonic Code, or the Civil Code of the French, was a revolutionary legal framework that sought to eliminate the complexities and inconsistencies of feudal laws. It emphasized clarity, accessibility, and the secular nature of law.

"Laws should be clear, precise, and uniform for all citizens."
— Napoleon Bonaparte

The Code has profoundly influenced legal systems worldwide, including those in France, much of Europe, Latin America, and parts of Asia and Africa. Countries like India have legal systems that incorporate elements of civil law traditions alongside Common Law, reflecting the Code's extensive reach.

Codification and Social Order

The Napoleonic Code codified civil law concerning property, family, and personal rights, reflecting the social norms and moral values of the time. By providing a written and accessible set of laws, it established clear boundaries for acceptable behavior and legal obligations.

Boundaries Reflecting Social Norms

In civil law systems influenced by the Napoleonic Code, laws are often more prescriptive, leaving less room for judicial interpretation compared to Common Law. This approach ensures that boundaries are explicitly defined, reducing ambiguity in how laws apply to new technologies.

"A law is valuable, not because it is law, but because there is right in it."
— Henry Ward Beecher

Modern Legal Boundaries in Technology

As technology advances, the law continues to set boundaries that protect societal interests, often reflecting prevailing social norms and ethical considerations.

Deepfakes and Digital Manipulation

The proliferation of artificial intelligence has given rise to deepfakes—highly realistic but fabricated images or videos created using AI. These technologies pose significant risks to privacy, security, and democratic processes.

On September 17, 2024, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a series of bills aimed at combating the use of deepfakes in election campaigns:

• AB 865 (Assemblymember Marc Berman): Requires large online platforms to remove or label deceptive and digitally altered or created content related to elections during specified periods. It mandates that platforms provide mechanisms for reporting such content and authorizes legal action against non-compliant platforms.

"AI-generated deepfakes pose a clear and present risk to our elections and our democracy. AB 865 is a first-in-the-nation solution to this growing threat."
— Assemblymember Marc Berman

• AB 1282 (Assemblymember Buffy Wicks): Expands the timeframe and scope in which entities are prohibited from distributing election materials containing deceptive AI-generated content. It allows candidates, elected officials, and others to seek injunctions against the dissemination of such material. 

"Protecting the integrity of our elections is paramount. This law ensures that voters receive truthful information when it matters most."
— Assemblymember Buffy Wicks

These laws exemplify how legal boundaries are established to mitigate the risks posed by new technologies, ensuring they do not undermine democratic institutions or societal values.

Communication Decency Act (CDA) and Section 230

The Communication Decency Act of 1996 was one of the first major attempts by the U.S. Congress to regulate the internet. While much of the CDA was struck down, Section 230 remains a foundational law for online platforms.

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
— Section 230, CDA

This provision has been crucial in allowing online platforms to flourish while also setting boundaries for content moderation and liability, balancing innovation with responsibility.

Balancing Innovation and Regulation

Lawmakers often face the challenge of regulating emerging technologies without stifling innovation. Over-regulation can hinder technological progress, while under-regulation may leave society vulnerable to harm.

"Technology is a useful servant but a dangerous master."
— Christian Lous Lange

Lange, known for his work in promoting internationalism and peace, emphasized the need for balance in all systems of power, including technology. The goal is to create laws that provide clear guidelines and boundaries, encouraging responsible innovation that benefits society. Regulation should ensure that technology and its providers don't become our masters by locking us in through means such as proprietary algorithms, data monopolies, or restrictive user agreements. For example, if a generative AI model is controlled by a single company that limits access or imposes biased outputs, it could manipulate information or stifle competition. Balanced regulation is essential to prevent such scenarios and promote an open, fair technological landscape.

The Law of Horses Analogy

Caution Against Over-Specialization

Judge Frank H. Easterbrook introduced the "Law of Horses" concept, arguing against the creation of overly specialized legal domains for each new technology.

"Developing a law of cyberspace is as wise as developing the law of the horse."
— Judge Frank H. Easterbrook

He suggested that instead of crafting new laws for each technological advancement, existing legal principles should be applied and adapted as necessary.

Adaptability of Existing Legal Frameworks

The adaptability of Common Law to new technology is evident in landmark cases such as Katz v. United States (1967) and Riley v. California (2014). Katz v. United States (1967) expanded Fourth Amendment protections to include electronic surveillance, demonstrating the law's ability to adapt.

"The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places."
— Justice Potter Stewart

Similarly, Riley v. California (2014) required law enforcement to obtain warrants before searching digital information on cell phones, reflecting an understanding of modern privacy concerns.

In Katz, the U.S. Supreme Court redefined the scope of the Fourth Amendment by holding that it protects people, not just places. Charles Katz was convicted of illegal gambling after the FBI recorded his phone conversations from a public phone booth using an electronic listening device attached to the exterior. The Court ruled that Katz had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the phone booth, even though it was a public space, and that electronic surveillance without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights. This decision expanded privacy protections to include electronic wiretapping, setting a precedent for interpreting constitutional rights in light of technological advancements.

Similarly, in Riley v. California, the Supreme Court addressed the search and seizure of digital information on cell phones during an arrest. David Riley was pulled over for a traffic violation, which led to his arrest on weapons charges. Police searched his smartphone without a warrant and found evidence linking him to a gang-related shooting. The Court unanimously held that the warrantless search of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional, recognizing that modern cell phones contain vast amounts of personal data. This ruling highlights the need to reinterpret existing legal protections in the context of new technologies.

As Justice John Paul Stevens once remarked, “The question is not what has changed, but what remains the same.” These cases illustrate how existing legal frameworks can be flexibly interpreted to address new technological contexts. The principles established in these decisions can guide the regulation of emerging technologies like Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). This approach ensures a solid legal foundation while allowing for adaptability as technology evolves.

Integrating Technology Into Legal Norms

By applying established legal concepts to new technologies, the law sets boundaries that are consistent with societal values, avoiding fragmentation of legal understanding. This approach also helps to reduce the need for new regulations each time there is an advancement in technology such as generative AI.

"The law must be stable, but it must not stand still."
— Roscoe Pound

According to Pound, the legal system should incorporate sociological insights and adjust to societal changes to better serve the community's needs and ensure justice. This perspective highlights the idea that law is dynamic and must evolve in response to the changing landscape of social conditions, rather than remaining static and bound by historical interpretations. Pound's thoughts on law and society laid the groundwork for future legal reforms and influenced the development of legal thought and the practice of law in ways that accommodate societal growth and transformation. In the context of generative AI, this adaptive approach becomes crucial. As the technology grows and reshapes industries, the application of existing legal frameworks ensures a seamless transition without the constant need for new legislation, promoting both innovation and stability.

Read more: Comparing the Law of Horses and the Law of AI

International Perspectives on Legal Boundaries

European Union's Approach

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a prime example of how laws can set strict boundaries on technology to protect individual rights.

"Privacy is not an option, and it shouldn't be the price we accept for just getting on the internet."
— Gary Kovacs

The GDPR imposes rigorous requirements on how personal data is collected, processed, and stored, reflecting Europe's strong emphasis on privacy as a social norm.

Asia and the Napoleonic Influence

Countries like Japan and South Korea have legal systems influenced by civil law traditions, incorporating elements of the Napoleonic Code. These systems often have detailed statutes that set clear boundaries on technological use, such as stringent regulations on robotics and AI.

Cultural Values Shaping Legal Boundaries

Different societies prioritize different values, which are reflected in their legal systems. For example, China's cybersecurity laws focus on state security and social stability, imposing strict controls on data and technology.

"Laws and regulations must guide the development of technology to ensure it serves the interests of the people."
— Xi Jinping

Law as a Reflection of Social Ethics

Evolving Norms and Legal Responses

As societal values evolve, laws are updated to reflect new ethical standards. Issues like data privacy, genetic engineering, and AI ethics are at the forefront of legal discussions, with laws setting boundaries to prevent misuse.

"Ethics change with technology."
— Larry Niven

Public Participation in Lawmaking

Democratic societies often involve public consultation in the legislative process, ensuring that laws setting technological boundaries have societal support.

"The law is the expression of the general will."
— Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Ensuring Technology Serves Humanity

"Our technology has exceeded our humanity."
— Albert Einstein

These Albert Einstein's words, spoken in a different era, remain just as relevant today as they were during his time. Technology, particularly the advancements in generative AI, has grown at an exponential pace (as discussed in The Law of Accelerated Returns), outstripping the linear evolution of biological capabilities (as discussed in Exponential Technology vs. Linear Biology). This discrepancy in the rates of change—with biology evolving gradually while technology leaps ahead—is reshaping not only what we are capable of as human beings, but also the cultural and social values that define us. However, technology exceeding humanity in principle is not inherently a bad thing. Super intelligence by itself is not bad and may even save us one day, offering solutions to some of humanity's most pressing challenges. The rapid advancement of generative AI tools has brought about a mix of potential benefits and profound ethical challenges, creating a landscape that demands careful navigation to harness its potential for good.

The role of law in this evolving landscape is crucial. Ultimately, the purpose of legal frameworks is to ensure that technology enhances human well-being without compromising ethical standards or societal values. Law acts as a balancing force, guiding the responsible development and application of technologies like generative AI, ensuring that innovation does not come at the cost of fundamental human rights, fairness, or societal trust, while recognizing that technological advances—if properly guided—can greatly benefit humanity. As AI continues to reshape our world, legal systems must adapt dynamically, aiming to protect what is inherently human while allowing technology to serve humanity in meaningful and beneficial ways.

Advancements in Common Law Amid Technological Progress

In our generative native world, digital data has effectively become the new ankle monitor, a notion underscored by the Supreme Court's decision in Carpenter v. United States (2018). In this landmark case, the Court held that law enforcement must obtain a warrant to access historical cell phone location records, acknowledging the intimate details that digital data can reveal about individuals and extending privacy protections to encompass modern technological realities. As Chief Justice John Roberts noted, "When the Government tracks the location of a cell phone, it achieves near perfect surveillance, as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone's user." In the spirit of the U.S. Constitution and our values, social media networks and consumer device manufacturers should adopt opt-in policies rather than opt-out ones, ensuring that individuals have greater control over their personal data.

As technology evolves at an exponential rate, the law, particularly in Common Law jurisdictions, has demonstrated remarkable adaptability to keep pace. The inherent flexibility of Common Law allows it to address unprecedented challenges posed by new technologies, ensuring that legal principles remain relevant in the digital age.

Expansion of Privacy Rights in the Digital Era

Katz v. United States (1967)

One of the landmark cases that showcased the adaptability of Common Law to technological advancements was Katz v. United States. The Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, to include electronic forms of communication.

"The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places."
— Justice Potter Stewart

This case set a precedent for privacy rights in the context of evolving technologies, recognizing that constitutional protections must extend to areas beyond physical spaces.

Carpenter v. United States (2018)

In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court held that law enforcement must obtain a warrant to access historical cell phone location records.

"When the Government tracks the location of a cell phone, it achieves near perfect surveillance, as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone's user."
— Chief Justice John Roberts

This decision acknowledged the intimate details that digital data can reveal about individuals, extending privacy protections to encompass modern technological realities.

Regulation of Online Content and Platform Liability

Communication Decency Act (CDA) of 1996

The CDA was a pivotal piece of legislation aimed at regulating pornographic material on the internet. While much of the Act was struck down as unconstitutional, Section 230 survived and became one of the most important laws governing the internet.

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
— Section 230, CDA

Section 230 provides immunity to online platforms from liability for user-generated content, allowing for the growth of social media and other interactive services.

Read more: Internet Scare (1996) v. the Generative AI Scare

Impact and Ongoing Debates

This legal protection has been instrumental in fostering innovation on the internet. However, it has also sparked debates about the responsibility of platforms in moderating harmful or illegal content.

"Section 230 is the most important law protecting internet speech."
— Electronic Frontier Foundation

In recent years, there have been calls to amend or repeal Section 230 to address issues like misinformation, hate speech, and platform accountability.

Intellectual Property Law and Digital Media

Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998

The DMCA was enacted to address challenges posed by digital media and the internet to copyright law. It introduced provisions to protect digital works and criminalized the production and dissemination of technology that circumvents digital rights management (DRM).

"The DMCA seeks to balance the rights of copyright owners with the needs of users and innovators."
— U.S. Copyright Office

The Act also established a "safe harbor" provision, shielding online service providers from liability for user actions, provided they comply with certain requirements.

Implications for Technology and Innovation

The DMCA has had significant implications for technology companies, influencing how digital content is shared and protected. It has also sparked debates over fair use, user rights, and the impact on innovation.

Cybercrime and Cybersecurity Legislation

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) of 1986

The CFAA was one of the first federal statutes to address computer hacking. Initially focused on government computers, it has since been expanded to cover a wide range of computer-related offenses.

"Whoever intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains information..."
— Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Evolving Interpretations and Criticisms

The broad language of the CFAA has led to varied interpretations, sometimes criminalizing relatively minor infractions. Critics argue that it needs reform to prevent abuse and to better reflect the realities of modern computing.

Addressing Deepfakes and AI-Generated Content

State Legislation on Deepfakes

The rise of artificial intelligence and deepfake technology presents new challenges for privacy, defamation, and election integrity.

• California's AB 730 and AB 602 (2019): California passed laws targeting deepfakes in elections and non-consensual pornography.

  • AB 730 prohibits the distribution of deceptive audio or visual media of political candidates within 60 days of an election.

"Deepfake technology can deceive voters and disrupt elections. This law aims to preserve the integrity of our democratic process."
— Assemblymember Marc Berman

• • AB 602 allows individuals to sue creators of digitally altered sexually explicit media without consent.

Federal Initiatives

While no comprehensive federal law specifically addresses deepfakes, there have been proposed bills, such as the DEEPFAKES Accountability Act, aiming to criminalize the malicious creation and distribution of deepfake content.

Data Protection and Privacy Laws

General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

Although not a Common Law jurisdiction, the European Union's GDPR has had a global impact, influencing data protection practices worldwide.

"The GDPR is designed to harmonize data privacy laws across Europe, to protect and empower all EU citizens' data privacy..."
— European Commission

Influence on U.S. Law

In response to GDPR and growing concerns over data privacy, several U.S. states have enacted their own data protection laws.

• California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) of 2018
  The CCPA grants California residents new rights regarding their personal information and imposes obligations on businesses handling that information.
  "The CCPA ensures that consumers have the right to know what personal data is being collected and to say no to the sale of personal data."
  — California Department of Justice

• Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (CDPA) of 2021
  Virginia enacted similar legislation to protect consumer data, reflecting a trend toward greater data privacy regulation in the U.S.

Net Neutrality and Open Internet Principles

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Regulations

Net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all data equally without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.

• 2015 Open Internet Order
  The FCC adopted rules to protect net neutrality, classifying broadband as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act.

"An open internet allows consumers to access the lawful content and applications that they choose."
— FCC

• 2017 Restoring Internet Freedom Order
  The FCC reversed the 2015 rules, reclassifying broadband as an information service and eliminating net neutrality protections.

• 2024 Reinstating Net Neutrality Rules

FCC reinstated the Commission’s net neutrality framework by reclassifying broadband internet access service as a telecommunications service, which is regulated under Title II of the Communications Act

Legal Challenges and State Responses

The rollback of federal net neutrality rules in 2017 led to legal challenges and prompted states like California to enact their own net neutrality laws, leading to ongoing legal battles over state versus federal authority.

Cybersecurity and Critical Infrastructure Protection

Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA) of 2015

CISA encourages the sharing of cyber threat information between the government and private sector to enhance cybersecurity defenses.

"CISA aims to improve cybersecurity in the United States through enhanced sharing of information about cybersecurity threats."
— Department of Homeland Security

Critical Infrastructure Protection

Laws and regulations have been developed to protect critical infrastructure sectors, such as energy, finance, and healthcare, from cyber threats.

• Executive Order 13636 (2013)
  This order directed the development of a cybersecurity framework for critical infrastructure.

"It is the policy of the United States to enhance the security and resilience of the Nation's critical infrastructure."
— Executive Order 13636

E-Commerce and Digital Transactions

Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-SIGN) of 2000

The E-SIGN Act grants legal recognition to electronic signatures and records, facilitating electronic commerce.

"A signature, contract, or other record... may not be denied legal effect... solely because it is in electronic form."
— E-SIGN Act

Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA)

Adopted by most states, UETA establishes the legal validity of electronic records and signatures at the state level.

Adapting Tort Law to Technology

Product Liability and Software

Courts have grappled with whether software should be considered a product for purposes of product liability.

• Winter v. G.P. Putnam's Sons (1991)
  A court held that a publisher was not liable for inaccuracies in a book that led to harm, raising questions about liability for informational content.

• Defective Software Litigation
  As software becomes integral to products (e.g., medical devices, automobiles), courts have increasingly considered software defects under product liability law.

Defamation and Online Speech

The rise of social media has led to new considerations in defamation law, balancing freedom of expression with protection against harmful false statements.

• Doe v. Cahill (2005)
  The court set standards for unmasking anonymous online speakers accused of defamation, protecting First Amendment rights while allowing for legal recourse.

Autonomous Vehicles and Legal Adaptation

The advent of self-driving cars presents complex legal questions around liability, safety standards, and ethical decision-making algorithms.

• Federal Guidance
  The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued guidelines for the testing and deployment of autonomous vehicles.

"Automated vehicles have the potential to save thousands of lives, driving the single biggest leap in road safety that our country has ever taken."
— NHTSA

• State Legislation
  Many states have enacted laws or executive orders to facilitate the testing of autonomous vehicles, addressing issues like operator licensing and insurance requirements.

International Cooperation and Harmonization

Budapest Convention on Cybercrime (2001)

An international treaty aimed at addressing internet and computer crime by harmonizing national laws and increasing cooperation.

"The Convention is the first international treaty on crimes committed via the internet and other computer networks."
— Council of Europe

Challenges and Future Directions

As cyber threats are borderless, international cooperation is essential. Ongoing efforts aim to develop global norms and legal frameworks to address challenges like cyber warfare and transnational cybercrime.

Advancements in Common Law for Artificial Intelligence and Algorithmic Accountability

The increasing use of AI in decision-making processes raises concerns about bias, transparency, and accountability. AI systems often operate as "black boxes," making decisions through complex algorithms that are not easily interpretable. This opacity can lead to unintentional biases, discrimination, and unfair outcomes, particularly against marginalized groups.

"As AI systems become more embedded in society, the need for transparency and accountability becomes paramount."
— Timnit Gebru, AI Researcher

Legislative Initiatives in the United States

Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2022

In February 2022, U.S. Senators Ron Wyden and Cory Booker, along with Representative Yvette Clarke, reintroduced the Algorithmic Accountability Act. The proposed legislation aims to:

• Require companies to conduct impact assessments of automated decision systems (ADS) used in critical areas like finance, healthcare, housing, and employment.

• Mandate evaluations for biases and effectiveness.

• Ensure transparency by requiring companies to provide documentation of these assessments to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

"Computers are increasingly involved in the most important decisions affecting Americans' lives—whether someone can buy a home, get a job, or even go to jail. But instead of eliminating bias, too often these algorithms depend on biased data that can actually reinforce discrimination against women and people of color."
— Senator Ron Wyden

New York City's Local Law 144 of 2021

Effective July 5, 2023 (postponed from January 1, 2023), New York City's Local Law 144 regulates the use of automated employment decision tools (AEDTs):

• Employers must conduct annual bias audits of AEDTs used in hiring or promotion.

• Results of the bias audit must be publicly available.

• Candidates must be notified about the use of AEDTs and have the option to request alternative evaluation methods.

"This law represents a significant step toward transparency and fairness in the employment process, ensuring that AI tools do not perpetuate discrimination."
— New York City Council

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Guidance

The FTC has emphasized that existing laws apply to AI and algorithms:

• Section 5 of the FTC Act prohibits unfair or deceptive practices.

• Companies must ensure that their AI tools do not result in discriminatory outcomes.

• The FTC can take enforcement actions against companies that misuse AI technologies.

"Hold yourself accountable—or be ready for the FTC to do it for you."
— Elisa Jillson, Attorney, FTC Division of Privacy and Identity Protection

European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act

The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) is a comprehensive regulatory framework proposed in April 2021:

• Risk-Based Approach: Categorizes AI applications into unacceptable, high-risk, limited risk, and minimal risk.

  • Unacceptable Risk: Prohibits AI systems that threaten safety or fundamental rights (e.g., social scoring by governments).

  • High Risk: Requires strict obligations for systems used in critical areas like employment, education, law enforcement.

  • Limited Risk: Mandates transparency obligations (e.g., informing users when interacting with AI chatbots).

  • Minimal Risk: Allows free use of applications like AI-enabled video games.

• Obligations for High-Risk AI:

  • Risk assessments and mitigation strategies.

  • High-quality datasets to minimize risk and discriminatory outcomes.

  • Logging of activities to ensure traceability.

  • Transparency and provision of information to users.

  • Human oversight to prevent or minimize risks.

"Europe needs to become a global leader in trustworthy AI by ensuring that AI is human-centric and respects our values."
— Margrethe Vestager, Executive Vice-President for A Europe Fit for the Digital Age

White House Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights

Released in October 2022, the Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights outlines five principles to guide the design, use, and deployment of AI systems:

1. Safe and Effective Systems: AI systems should be tested for safety and effectiveness.

2. Algorithmic Discrimination Protections: Prevent discrimination and ensure equity.

3. Data Privacy: Users should have agency over how their data is used.

4. Notice and Explanation: Transparency about when and how AI is used.

5. Human Alternatives, Consideration, and Fallback: Access to a human representative when needed.

"This framework is a guide to ensure that people’s rights and freedoms are protected as technology advances."
— Dr. Alondra Nelson, former Deputy Director for Science and Society, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) AI Risk Management Framework

In January 2023, NIST released the AI Risk Management Framework 1.0:

• Voluntary Guidance: Helps organizations manage risks associated with AI systems.

• Four Core Functions:

  1. Map: Contextualize AI risks.

  2. Measure: Analyze and assess AI risks.

  3. Manage: Prioritize and respond to AI risks.

  4. Govern: Implement policies and procedures for AI risk management.

• Emphasis on Trustworthiness: Focuses on accuracy, reliability, safety, security, resilience, and accountability.

"The framework provides a resource to enable the voluntary and responsible design, development, and use of AI systems."
— Dr. Charles Romine, Director of NIST's Information Technology Laboratory

International Efforts and Guidelines

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) AI Principles

Adopted in May 2019, the OECD AI Principles are the first international standards agreed upon by governments:

• Inclusive Growth, Sustainable Development, and Well-being: AI should benefit people and the planet.

• Human-Centered Values and Fairness: Respect for human rights and democratic values.

• Transparency and Explainability: AI systems should be understandable.

• Robustness, Security, and Safety: AI systems must function appropriately and be secure.

• Accountability: Organizations and individuals developing AI should be accountable.

"The OECD Principles set the international standard for AI to be innovative and trustworthy and that respects human rights and democratic values."
— OECD

UNESCO's Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence

Adopted in November 2021, UNESCO's recommendation focuses on ethical AI development:

• Protecting Data Privacy: Ensuring personal data protection.

• Banning Social Scoring and Mass Surveillance: Prohibiting technologies that infringe on human rights.

• Accountability Mechanisms: Establishing frameworks for responsibility and redress.

• Environmental Considerations: Addressing AI's environmental impact.

"This global normative framework will not only protect but also promote human rights and human dignity."
— Audrey Azoulay, Director-General of UNESCO

Standardization Efforts

International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)

• ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 42: A joint technical committee focusing on AI standardization.

• Standards Development: Working on standards for AI concepts, terminology, big data reference architecture, and trustworthiness.

"International standards are essential to create trust in AI technologies and facilitate global trade."
— ISO/IEC Joint Statement

Industry Self-Regulation and Best Practices

Tech Companies' Ethical AI Initiatives

• Google's AI Principles: Committed to socially beneficial AI, avoiding unfair bias, and testing for safety.

• Microsoft's Responsible AI: Focuses on fairness, reliability, privacy, inclusiveness, transparency, and accountability.

• OpenAI's Policy Initiatives: Advocates for policies that balance innovation with safety and ethical considerations.

"Responsible AI is not just a commitment but a journey that requires ongoing effort and collaboration."
— Brad Smith, President of Microsoft

Ethical Considerations and Frameworks

The Role of AI Ethics Committees

Organizations are establishing ethics boards and committees to oversee AI development:

• Purpose: Provide guidance on ethical dilemmas, ensure compliance with laws and regulations, and promote responsible AI use.

• Challenges: Balancing commercial interests with ethical considerations, avoiding conflicts of interest.

"Ethics must be baked into the design process of AI systems from the very beginning."
— Dr. Fei-Fei Li, Co-Director of Stanford's Human-Centered AI Institute

Academic Contributions

Universities and research institutions are actively contributing to the discourse on AI ethics and accountability:

• MIT Media Lab: Research on algorithmic fairness and transparency.

• AI Now Institute at NYU: Focuses on the social implications of AI.

"Interdisciplinary research is crucial to understand and mitigate the societal impacts of AI."
— Kate Crawford, Co-founder of AI Now Institute

Future Directions

Global Collaboration

• International Agreements: Potential for treaties similar to the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime but focused on AI.

• Cross-Border Data Governance: Establishing norms for data sharing and privacy protection internationally.

Regulatory Sandboxes

• Purpose: Allow companies to test innovative AI solutions under regulatory supervision.

• Benefits: Encourage innovation while ensuring compliance with ethical and legal standards.

"Regulatory sandboxes can strike a balance between innovation and regulation, fostering responsible AI development."
— World Economic Forum

Continuous Monitoring and Adaptation

• Dynamic Regulations: Laws and policies need to evolve with technological advancements.

• Stakeholder Engagement: Involving technologists, policymakers, ethicists, and the public in the regulatory process.

"Adaptive governance is essential in managing the complexities of AI technologies."
— Professor Virginia Dignum, Expert in AI Ethics

By expanding on these areas, we see how Common Law and statutory frameworks have continually adapted to technological advancements. Through case law, legislation, and international agreements, the legal system seeks to address the complexities introduced by new technologies, balancing innovation with protection of rights and societal interests.

These examples illustrate the dynamic nature of the law in response to technological progress, emphasizing the importance of legal adaptability in fostering a society where technology can thrive responsibly.

Conclusion

Law and technology are in a constant dialogue. The law sets the stage upon which technology can safely and ethically develop, while technological advancements challenge the law to adapt and evolve. By understanding this dynamic relationship, society can harness the power of technology within a legal framework that promotes innovation, protects rights, and upholds social norms.

As we move forward into an era of rapid technological change, the principles of adaptability and integration within the legal system will be more important than ever. The goal is to ensure that the law not only keeps pace with technology but also acts as an accelerator, guiding innovations that benefit society as a whole.

"The art of progress is to preserve order amid change and to preserve change amid order."
— Alfred North Whitehead

By setting clear boundaries, acknowledging the role of technological pioneers like Alan Turing in making technology repeatable and scalable, and adapting existing legal frameworks to new challenges, the law can continue to be a powerful accelerator of technological advancement. It ensures that as we push the frontiers of what is possible, we remain grounded in the principles that protect and enhance the human experience.

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? 

• Teaching LLMs common sense thinking

• The Ethical Nexus in an Era of Surrogate Machines

• Applying Asimov's Laws to Robot Taxis Confronted by Threats

• The Moat Matrix: LLMs Shape, but Don't Define the Moat

• From Infinite Improbability to Generative AI: Navigating Imagination in Fiction and Technology

• Human vs. AI in Reinforcement Learning through Human Feedback

• LinkedIn Profiles in the Age of Generative AI

• 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

• AI to Make us Super-Scientist, not Super-humans

• Law is Not Logic: The Exponential Dilemma in Generative AI Governance

• Generative AI & Law: I Am an American Day in Central Park, 1944

• Pushpaka Vimana, Conceptualizing Vedic Technology & Diwali

• 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: LLMs are not Stochastic Parrots

• The Age of AI and the Charm of Tradition

• Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) with Generative AI

• Need for Machine Consciousness & The Chinese Room Argument

• Generative AI & Law: The Evolving Role of Judges in the Federal Judiciary in the Age of AI

• Eating Shellfish to Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)

• 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

• Selling Dreams vs. Racing to Win

• LLMs as a Tool to Preserve a Society in History

• Beginning of The End for AI; Beginning for Generative AI

• Decentralized Truth & What is Means for AI Regulations

• Anthropomorphizing AGI

• The First Amendment & The Freedom to Think For Ourselves

• AI as a Common Carrier - A Utility

• Generative Native World: Deliberating Blame

• Generative Native World: The Right to be Let Alone

• One Day Can Last For Ever: Work & Life 

• Justice Sotomayor on Consequence of a Procedure or Substance

• The Moral LLM

• From France to the EU: A Test-and-Expand Approach to EU AI Regulation

• Beyond Human: Envisioning Unique Forms of Consciousness in AI

• Silent Enim Leges Inter Arma

• Protoconsciousness in AGI: Pathways to Artificial Consciousness

• Building Moral Machines

• AI Regulation: Reflections from Roe v. Wade (1973)

• Internet Scare (1996) v. the Generative AI Scare

• NYSERNet to Empire AI? Not Quite

• Artificial Consciousness as a Way to Mitigate AI Existential Risk

• Imagining AGI as a Digital Homo sapien

• Autonomous AI Agents as Economic Actors

• Human Memory & LLM Efficiency: Optimized Learning through Temporal Memory

• Building Greatness in AGI

• AI-Hard Problems

• Building Subconscious Processing in AGI

• Building Intuition in AGI

• Product Design Lessons from Building Ferrari Racing Cars

• Daher TBM 960 (N960LP) Crash, Potentially Caused by Somatogravic Illusion at Truckee-Tahoe Airport (TRK), California

• Anticipatory Design for Critical Products

• Immortal Identity through Digital Consciousness

• Adaptive Minds and Efficient Machines: Brain vs. Transformer Attention Systems

• Self-aware LLMs Inspired by Metacognition as a Step Towards AGI

• The Right to Not Explain Oneself

• The Law of Accelerated Returns

• Exponential Technology vs. Linear Biology

• Comparing the Law of Horses and the Law of AI

• Technology as Amplifier of Human Consciousness

• The Balance of Laws with Considerations of Fairness, Equity, and Ethics

• AI Recommender Systems and First-Party vs. Third-Party Speech

• Creating Style, Instead of Following Fashion

• Building Products that Survive the Times at Robometrics® Machines

• Autoregressive LLMs and the Limits of the Law of Accelerated Returns

• Creating Policies That Don’t Create Happy Slaves

• The Power of Branding and Perception: McDonald’s as a Case Study