If an AI model engages in conduct on its own that, if committed by a human, would constitute a criminal offense and leads to those extreme outcomes, that would also be a critical harm.
令人惊讶的是：法律正在考虑将AI自主行为导致的严重后果定义为'关键危害'，这暗示AI可能被赋予某种法律人格。这种立法尝试反映了我们正在进入一个需要重新思考法律主体概念的时代，因为AI系统已经展现出独立行动的能力。
Definitely true
Automating oral argument
A Harvard Law graduate who argued before the Supreme Court fed his case briefs into Claude 4 Opus and had it answer the same questions the Justices posed to him. The AI delivered what he called an "outstanding oral argument" with coherent answers and clever responses he hadn't considered, leading him to conclude that AI lawyers could soon outperform even top human advocates at oral argument.
there's a huge disparity between state of law application of tech and what's 00:15:42 actually happening
for - AI - law - too slow
These arguments are meant to present a cautionary tale of unintended consequences.
For - progress trap - AI - Generative AI - IP - Yale Law Journal
I wouldn't focus too much on "posted only after human review" - it's worth noting that's that's worth nothing. We literally just saw a case of obviously riduculous AI images in a scientific paper breezing through peer review with noone caring, so quality will necessarily go down because Brandolini's law combined with AI is the death sentence for communities like SE and I doubt they'll employ people to review content from the money they'll make
we present a novel evidence extraction architecture called ATT-MRC
A new evidence extraction architecture called ATT-MRC improves the recognition of evidence entities in judgement documents by treating it as a question-answer problem, resulting in better performance than existing methods.
We also compare the answer retrieval performance of a RoBERTa Base classifier against a traditional machine learning model in the legal domain
Transformer models like RoBERTa outperform traditional machine learning models in legal question answering tasks, achieving significant improvements in performance metrics such as F1-score and Mean Reciprocal Rank.
Learning heterogeneous graph embedding for Chinese legal document similarity
The paper proposes L-HetGRL, an unsupervised approach using a legal heterogeneous graph and incorporating legal domain-specific knowledge, to improve Legal Document Similarity Measurement (LDSM) with superior performance compared to other methods.
Can copyright vest in an AI? The primary objective of intellectual property law is to protect the rights of the creators of intellectual property.10 Copyright laws specifically aim to: (i) promote creativity and encourage authors, composers, artists and designers to create original works by affording them the exclusive right to exploit such work for monetary gain for a limited period; and (ii) protect the creators of the original works from unauthorised reproduction or exploitation of those works.
Can copyright vest in an AI?
The primary objective of intellectual property law is to protect the rights of the creators of intellectual property.10 Copyright laws specifically aim to: (i) promote creativity and encourage authors, composers, artists and designers to create original works by affording them the exclusive right to exploit such work for monetary gain for a limited period; and (ii) protect the creators of the original works from unauthorised reproduction or exploitation of those works.
To my knowledge, conferring copyright in works generated by artificial intelligence has never been specifically prohibited. However, there are indications that the laws of many countries are not amenable to non-human copyright. In the United States, for example, the Copyright Office has declared that it will “register an original work of authorship, provided that the work was created by a human being.” This stance flows from case law (e.g. Feist Publications v Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc. 499 U.S. 340 (1991)) which specifies that copyright law only protects “the fruits of intellectual labor” that “are founded in the creative powers of the mind.” Similarly, in a recent Australian case (Acohs Pty Ltd v Ucorp Pty Ltd), a court declared that a work generated with the intervention of a computer could not be protected by copyright because it was not produced by a human.
To my knowledge, conferring copyright in works generated by artificial intelligence has never been specifically prohibited. However, there are indications that the laws of many countries are not amenable to non-human copyright. In the United States, for example, the Copyright Office has declared that it will “register an original work of authorship, provided that the work was created by a human being.” This stance flows from case law (e.g. Feist Publications v Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc. 499 U.S. 340 (1991)) which specifies that copyright law only protects “the fruits of intellectual labor” that “are founded in the creative powers of the mind.” Similarly, in a recent Australian case (Acohs Pty Ltd v Ucorp Pty Ltd), a court declared that a work generated with the intervention of a computer could not be protected by copyright because it was not produced by a human.
With the advent of AI software, computers — not monkeys — will potentially create millions of original works that may then be protected by copyright, under current law, for more than 100 years.
With the advent of AI software, computers — not monkeys — will potentially create millions of original works that may then be protected by copyright, under current law, for more than 100 years.
...
Humans can no longer compete with AI in chess. They should not be without AI in litigation either.
Just as chess players marshall their 16 chess pieces in a battle of wits, attorneys must select from millions of cases in order to present the best legal arguments.
Attorney IO, a provider of an artificial intelligence-driven service that helps attorneys manage their legal documents
The system has been criticised due to its method of scraping the internet to gather images and storing them in a database. Privacy activists say the people in those images never gave consent. “Common law has never recognised a right to privacy for your face,” Clearview AI lawyer Tor Ekeland said in a recent interview with CoinDesk. “It’s kind of a bizarre argument to make because [your face is the] most public thing out there.”
Humans act like a “liability sponge,” she says, absorbing all legal and moral responsibility in algorithmic accidents no matter how little or unintentionally they are involved.