Judges Find AI Doesn't Have Human Intelligence in Two New Court Cases (yahoo.com)
- Reference: 0180931152
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/03/09/0121210/judges-find-ai-doesnt-have-human-intelligence-in-two-new-court-cases
- Source link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/hiltzik-two-court-cases-judges-110000907.html
> On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to take up a lawsuit in which artist and computer scientist Stephen Thaler tried to copyright an artwork that he acknowledged had been created by an AI bot of his own invention. That left in place a [2]ruling last year by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which held that art created by non-humans can't be copyrighted... [Judge Patricia A. Millett] cited longstanding regulations of the Copyright Office requiring that "for a work to be copyrightable, it must owe its origin to a human being"... She rejected Thaler's argument, as had the federal trial judge who first heard the case, that the Copyright Office's insistence that the author of a work must be human was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court evidently agreed...
>
> [Another AI-related case] involved one Bradley Heppner, who was indicted by a federal grand jury for allegedly looting $150 million from a financial services company he chaired. Heppner pleaded innocent and was released on $25-million bail. The case is pending.... Knowing that an indictment was in the offing, Heppner had consulted Claude for help on a defense strategy. His lawyers asserted that those exchanges, which were set forth in written memos, were tantamount to consultations with Heppner's lawyers; therefore, his lawyers said, they were confidential according to attorney-client privilege and couldn't be used against Heppner in court. (They also cited the related attorney work product doctrine, which grants confidentiality to lawyers' notes and other similar material.) That was a nontrivial point. Heppner had given Claude information he had learned from his lawyers, and shared Claude's responses with his lawyers.
>
> [Federal Judge Jed S.] Rakoff made short work of this argument. First, he ruled, the AI documents weren't communications between Heppner and his attorneys, since Claude isn't an attorney... Second, he wrote, the exchanges between Heppner and Claude weren't confidential. In its terms of use, Anthropic claims the right to collect both a user's queries and Claude's responses, use them to "train" Claude, and disclose them to others. Finally, he wasn't asking Claude for legal advice, but for information he could pass on to his own lawyers, or not. Indeed, when prosecutors tested Claude by asking whether it could give legal advice, the bot advised them to "consult with a qualified attorney."
The columnist agrees AI-generated results shouldn't receive the same protections as human-generated material. "The AI bots are machines, and portraying them as though they're thinking creatures like artists or attorneys doesn't change that, and shouldn't."
He also seems to think their output is at best second-hand regurgitation. "Everything an AI bot spews out is, at more than a fundamental level, the product of human creativity."
[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/hiltzik-two-court-cases-judges-110000907.html
[2] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/27753523-thaler/
Well, when you look at actual facts (Score:2)
That is what you are going to find. There are just way to many easily manipulated delulus out there.
"Evidence" (Score:2)
I don't think it's much of a stretch to find the Claude AI evidence inadmissible for another reason, though judges widely don't do so: undue prejudice. The evidence of typing "how to get away with a crime I committed" isn't being offered for the purpose of showing the defendant did commit the crime, after all, it's being offered to impeach the credibility of the defendant testifying they didn't do it. Myself, I just don't believe juries can separate the two, so I'd never admit such evidence. But as I said,
Judges getting cluey (Score:3)
It is good to see Judges getting cluey on how generative AI works and constructing robust arguments regarding its use.
All these "creative" arguments that people are using to justify its use could easily seem reasonable to someone who is not tech savvy.
I've got a turnpike to sell you (Score:2)
> He also seems to think their output is at best second-hand regurgitation. "Everything an AI bot spews out is, at more than a fundamental level, the product of human creativity."
If you honestly don't agree, please reach out. I have a certain Governor Joseph Turner Turnpike in my possesion, a turnkey money making venture, and I'm looking to sell fast! Act now! Supplies are limited!
Bradley is stupid (Score:3)
This sounds like a non-trivial case with some big bucks. I'd bet his lawyers told him repeatedly, discuss this with no one. Anyone outside of the lawyer is NOT attorney/client privileged. And so what does the fool do? Talks to a chatbot that everyone knows shares. Right there in the ToS. I've had a few peanuts cases compared to this and even I was told speak to no one.
Loose lips sink ships or in this case, his case.
A legal definition of "intelligence"? (Score:2)
It is as useful in a discussion about what it is as the legal definition of a "person", which could be anything at any given time and has changed abruptly more than once, including in the past year in the jurisdiction in question.
Completely irrelevant to the everlasting discussion here of what it "really means".
Incidentally, it is a good time to re-read the fun Asimov story "Legal rites".
They bothered to ask Claude? (Score:2)
> Indeed, when prosecutors tested Claude by asking whether it could give legal advice, the bot advised them to "consult with a qualified attorney."
It's astounding they bothered asking Claude that question. They are pre-supposing Claude is qualified to answer the question in the first place. What would they have done if Claude had said yes? Claude is no more qualified than a toaster to give legal advice. If it's a question of legality, then Claude is *not* the one to ask; the court should know the answer to t
This is a good thing (Score:2)
While it's plausible that a real artist might use AI to make real art, much of what is currently produced is a tsunami of slop, quickly and effortlessly made by scammers to defraud streaming platforms
Let's be honest (Score:3)
A lot of AI proponents don't have human level intelligence either...
Re: (Score:2)
Let me correct that slightly: All humans without severe mental dysfunctionalities have General Intelligence. It may not be a lot in most cases, but it is there. The really bizarre thing is that most humans (around 80%) chose to not use that General Intelligence, because the results can be scary and result in uncertainties. Instead they typically chose to go along with what others tell them with no fact-checking. This effect is worse (!) on important topics and less bad on unimportant ones. But even on unimp
Re: (Score:2)
Well, proponents are humans, so they have "human level intelligence" tautologically. It is also true that AIs don't have human intelligence, because again, it's tautological. That being said, any discussion on this topic will automatically degrade to two opposing arguments because there is so much ambiguity in the language, including the regular use of words that aren't defined in a way that it universally accepted, and owing to the fact that people almost always start with the conclusion of their choice
Re: Let's be honest (Score:2)
"Call it what you will, I regularly have much more rewarding conversations with Claude and Gemini than the ones I have with most people most of the time. Is it a sad statement of the times, the state of education in this country, an acknowledgement that AI is far better than most people here clearly believe, or a sign that I'm so stupid that AI is not intelligent, but I am even less intelligent than AI?" Or perhaps it's none of the above and you just prefer to have a conversation with something designed to
Re: (Score:2)
So you haven't done it, but you already know all about it and have an opinion? Try it. Tell it up front to challenge your statements. Challenge what it states and see if it always agrees with you. If it becomes sycophantic, call it on that. Joke with it. You will be amazed. For the record, the closest thing I do to participating in anti-social media is commenting on youtube videos and posting here from time to time. If AI isn't already smarter than most people then it sure is better than most people at pre
Re: Let's be honest (Score:2)
It's a language model. Sounding good is what it does. It's not self-aware; it's not intelligent.....to the extent we can define that word. It is incredibly impressive. It can understand natural language instructions. It can import information without special formatting. It can use tools. It can run shell scripts. It can do crazy cool stuff. But it isn't alive.