Hot answers tagged

7

If you use any pictures you find online, you can use them as you wish: as long as you don't (re)publish them under your name. Also, if you really want to play safe, never upload them at all. Download them, use them, disregard them. People can't proof you used certain pictures to train your network by looking at your network data. And the 'big' companies ...


6

Yes, to some of what you propose. No to some. Today corporations are granted rights: to own property, earn income, pay taxes, contribute to political campaigns, offer opinion in public, ad more. Even now I see no reason why an AI should not be eligible to incorporate itself, thereby inheriting all these rights. Conversely, any corporation already in ...


4

Googling this throws a lot of debate on this issue of whether the call made to the restaurant for booking was legal or not. I found this article to put forward a lot of ideas for and against this. So it is for us to decide. But one thing that I fully agree with you, which should be made into a regulation, is human should know that he/she is talking to a bot....


3

Murray Shanahan, in his book The Technological Singularity, makes the case that the rights of any being are determined by its intelligence. For instance, we value the life of a dog above that of an ant and likewise value human life above that of other animals. From here one could argue that a general artificial intelligence of equal intelligence to a ...


3

How is the right to explanation reasonable, given the current standards at which we hold each other accountable? In short, it is quite reasonable. More specifically, making AI accountable and responsible for explaining the decision seems reasonable because Humans (DARPA in this case) has chosen to create, raise and evolve AI with the tax-payers money. In ...


3

For those times when AI does interact with humans, I believe that AI would be held at LEAST to the same standards humans are. The problem comes in when we ask "who is really to blame". If a self-driving car cuts you off in traffic and causes you to wreck, you can't take the AI in the car to court. Do you take the company? The programmer? The owner of the car?...


3

I don't know that it has yielded any actual reports or regulations yet, but in the USA, the White House has been running a series of interagency workshops / working groups dedicated to Preparing for the Future of Artificial Intelligence. Some of those sessions have been dedicated to legal / governance issues.


3

One person working in this space is Dr. Woody Barfield. He just wrote a book titled Cyberhumans: Our Future With Machines that focuses largely on the legal/policy issues around AI (and related topics). In addition to the book, he is continuing with other research in this area.


3

I'll attempt to analyze a couple of different perspectives. 1. It is artificial Synonyms: insincere, feigned, false. There is the idea that any "intelligence" created by humanity is not actually intelligent and, by definition, it is not possible. If you look at the structure of the human brain and compare it to anything humans have created thus far,...


2

No matter what rights it gets (as a company), it will still lack the right of not getting liquefied and all its properties transferred back to natural persons. This is of course if no laws are changed. To change the laws you will need to convince people that this machine is more "life" worthy than intelligent animals, and hope that people will deal with ...


1

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this does not constitute formal legal advice. If the output is novel the copyright resides with the creator In this case, almost certainly the human who utilizes the algorithm†. There was a recent US patent case "Dabus" [U.S. Patent Application No.: 16/524,350] where the human programmers tried to claim an AI ...


1

Can you use them commercially? Yes. Is Google able to sue you any time they want? Yes. Will they do that... Probably not. Google isn't a known patent bully, I would give them the benefit of the doubt in this kind of situation and say, unless you start really giving them real trouble, they wouldn't do anything. Some companies/people know an idea can ...


1

I thought it might be a helpful place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Street_View_privacy_concerns The wiki is well cited, so should lead to some useful tidbits. They break it down by continent and country. Seems like a parallel to what you're doing, although, if you're not making your data public, I doubt you'll be facing the same privacy ...


1

In a bureaucratic world, certainly, but governmental departments and committees are not the course setters their members often believe them to be. We can begin with a quick scan for somewhat opened, global, and governmentally oriented new and evidence of projects and open or hidden agenda in play. (We can guess what lobbying and defense contracts are in ...


1

In the paper Slave to the Algorithm? Why a 'Right to an Explanation' Is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For, the authors claim that the "right to explanation" is unlikely to provide a complete remedy to algorithmic harms for at least two reasons It is unclear when any explanation-related right can be triggered The explanations required by the law, "...


1

Does it benefit us? To answer this question, it's worth considering practical reasons why we grant or don't grant other people rights historically and currently. In essence, this is an arbitrary choice - there certainly were well functioning societies that didn't grant rights to many or most people; and we still don't grant some rights to many people - for ...


1

The core issue with this question rests in probability. Specifically: What if a kid is crossing the street and avoiding it would kill the driver? How does the AI know for certain that avoiding it would kill the driver? and certainty rears its head re: 1) If a dog is crossing the road, I'd expect the car to try to avoid it. But what if this leads ...


1

I don't think these questions will need to be answered. A self driving car will almost certainly avoid a situation like the ones described well before a human would have and hence would not have to choose. For example it would slow down as soon as it sees a child close to the road. It will identify and react to the fact that the child starts moving ...


1

"Artificial Intelligence" has existed for many, many years. Decades even. Go back to Arthur Samuel and his Checkers playing program (if not before). That's AI. The thing is, as soon as computers can do something, people want to quit treating it as AI. AI is almost, by definition, something that can't really exist, because it has to be about something ...


1

It depends on the country. In France, for example, you've got to have the agreement of the person. Doesn't matter whether he is the president, a singer or... me :) Edit: Doesn't matter what for. Your image belongs to you. Otherwise he (me) can sue you for that and seek redress. Faces of persons are blurred in Google Map Street View. Here is a link, in ...


1

A sufficiently clever AGI, if self-interested, would pre-empt or co-opt existing legal structures, to seize whatever juridical rights it desired, as the opportunity arose. Thus it would render my opinions on the subject entirely moot. Another way of putting this point: While current legal frameworks would not provide any rights to an artificial agent, ...


1

Not only wouldn't a strong AI which came into existence today have the rights a human has, or any rights (see these discussions of the implementation of regulation for weak AIs at: The White House and The American Bar Association), but it seems unlikely the first one will. Observing that: Having rights implies that there are restrictions, which means ...


1

As per the current legal system, if the AI agent were to be given a human citizenship, then yes, it would have to obey all laws as per the legislature of the country which provided the citizenship. If not then the entity who holds responsibility over its control and creation would be trialled (see also this scenario). Having stated the above, it really is ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible