In the story of Pinocchio, written in the 1880s as a children’s serial by Italian author, Carlo Collodi, a wooden puppet who wants to be a real boy learns, over time, the meaning of honesty, bravery, and selflessness. Because of this, he gets his wish.
Alas, our current electronic puppets, loosely called Artificial Intelligence (AI), are not capable of learning such lessons.
A few days ago, the LAT reported on two decisions issued by federal judges willing to steep themselves in the thorny technical and existential questions surrounding AI. As cases of first impression, these opinions set the stage for consideration of future, similar, cases.
The first case involved the law of copyright. A computer scientist had attempted to obtain copyright protection for an artwork entitled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise” in the name of his “Creativity Machine” which, he attested, had made the work entirely on its own, without specific prompts. The copyright office refused, citing a long-standing regulation that, in order to gain such protection, the work must “owe its origin to a human being”. The scientist lost at all levels–in the District Court, at the DC Court of Appeals–and at the Supreme Court, which simply left the decision of the Appellate Court standing. The Appellate Court did leave open the possibility of copyright when a machine was used as a tool by a human author.
The second case was decided by federal judge Jed S. Rakoff of New York, who has become one of the few judicial officers developing a deeper understanding about new technology and the law, which often lags in treating these issues. A defendant accused of stealing funds from a financial services company he chaired initiated extensive communication with Claude, the chatbot of the AI firm Anthropic, asking for help with possible defense strategies. (Yes, the same company that ran afoul of the Pentagon by demanding that Claude not be used to develop mass domestic surveillance or fully autonomous weapons).
After the FBI seized written versions of the back-and-forth communications with Claude, the defendant claimed that such an exchange was protected by attorney-client privilege. Uh, no, ruled Judge Rakoff. First of all, Claude is not an attorney. The privilege was established to enable “trusting human relationships”, subject to ethical rules and duties.
Conclusion: AI does not have human intelligence. It does not “think” for itself, or “create”. It collects unfathomable reams of data and organizes it, like writing a lightning fast research paper. Art, music, poetry or prose constructed by such entities is not work that springs originally from the mind, and soul, of a human artist, according to the court, and does not qualify for protection by copyright. In the same way, communications between a litigant and his AI companion are not protected by attorney client privilege any more than is online research.
As a side note, I must say that Mr. Data (of Star Trek: The Next Generation) would not agree with the Court. Increasingly concerned by the lack of rights for his growing community of sentient androids, Mr. Data, in the 24th Century, strove to move the needle toward expansion of the definition of “human”.
It is a question we are called upon to answer, more and more, as science works to mimic life. At present, however, it is clear that, with AI, we are not talking about a real boy.
Yet.
You Say Morality, I Say Mortality
Speaking of a lack of heart and soul, I was amused (and horrified) at the answer given by the East Wing destroyer to a question concerning the limitations on his powers. His presidential powers, he declared, are restrained only by his own morality. I read the statement twice and concluded that there must have been a typo.
Since the faux king, baseball hatted, cosplayer has not one shred of morality, I’m certain the correct sentence should have read, “constrained by his own mortality”. Seemingly, that would be the only end to his forever cowboy wars and the terrible losses of the lives of young Americans and innocent civilians.
And speaking of cosplay (Short for “costume playacting”) how about that Kristi Noem? For only 220 million dollars she bought ads from a company with ties to her family starring herself as a cowboy (a favorite icon of the right) riding to the rescue of national security. Ha! Not only are we less secure every day (Asked if we might be vulnerable to attacks on our own soil by Iran, the demented wanna-be ballroom builder said “I guess. But like I said, when you go to war, some people will die.”) He then threw the unfortunate pretend cowboy under the bus because, having failed so miserably at her job, she had become a liability. Still, that was much better treatment than Kristi gave her poor dog when he allegedly failed at his duties. As you may remember, she shot him.
Though I’m certain we can all agree that poor Cricket would have made a much better Special Envoy For The Shield of the Americas. Arf!
Author
About The Author
