6 ms·

To me, these kinds of events support the idea that no AI-specific law is needed. AI is already illegal to use insofar as it's used to commit a crime, and it's

To me, these kinds of events support the idea that no AI-specific law is needed. AI is already illegal to use insofar as it's used to commit a crime, and it's already subject to tort law.

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
*only if your pockets are deep enough to afford to sue the corporations who are misusing your likelihood without your consent Having something ratified as a law makes any lawsuit a slam dunk and discourages abuse even by wealthy corporations.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Having something ratified as a law makes any lawsuit a slam dunk No, it doesn't, otherwise there would be no lawsuits proceding to trial without settlement ubder established laws. Having law that (whether on its face or through case law) clearly applies to the situation that you claim occurred obviously helps, but it doesn't make any suit an automatic slam dunk.
dgrin91 3y ago
I think its too early to make that claim. Anyone can sue anyone else for pretty much anything. The question is will the case survive and have a reasonable chance of success? We might find out that this case dies in the first phases of proceedings because the law is not on Johansson's side.
- fragmede 3y ago
  Why would you suppose that? Broadly, celebrity likeness is a recognized legal concept prior to the advent of AI, so why would sprinkling magic AI dust on the case change things? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights
foxyv 3y ago
This makes me wonder, what will AI mean for professional impersonators? Is this the end of Saturday Night Live? Or will satire be considered fair use? I have a feeling we will definitely need some new legislation in the next 10 years for regulating AI.
- omginternets 3y ago
  The concept of "Fair Use" is well-established. Impersonators are safe, provided the work is "transformative". Satire is the textbook example of fair use.
dragonwriter 3y ago
What is less clear is whether existing criminal and tort law is adequate to cover trh concerns that arise with AI, but, yes, a lot of the things AI is being perceived as being abused for are at least on the fringes of existing legal regimes and may not need updates, or at least not major updates, to adequately handle them.
jowea 3y ago
That would be letting the courts interpret how the existing law applies to a new situation through. They may decide something that is not ideal.
- jjk166 3y ago
  From a legal standpoint it is not a new situation. If you create some novel invention and use it to rob a bank, the laws against robbery do not need reinterpretation.
- omginternets 3y ago
  >They may decide something that is not ideal. I don't follow your argument. That same problem applies to legislators and regulators. Also, I don't see any legal novelty. Same shit, different tech.
  - jowea 3y ago
    Legislators are at least supposed to consider different positions, interests and consequences and decide in the interest of the citizenry. Courts are supposed to just look at the law and precedents. And I meant novelty for AI in general. This specific case does seem like same shit different tech.
anuraaga 3y ago
AI-specific regulation is needed for the same reasons that crypto related regulation is needed - the tech exists and anyone can do it to do bad things without being tracked. Murder is illegal but if there was a way to commit it without anyone knowing, it would become quite popular. In terms of deepfakes or crypto scams, in the end what we need it is more literacy on the matter, which won't prevent the ability for AI to do "things" but will let us acknowledge that's where we're at. Specific laws to get everyone on the same page on this is absolutely necessary.

To me, these kinds of events support the idea that no AI-specific law is needed. AI is already illegal to use insofar as it's used to commit a crime, and it's already subject to tort law.

FirmwareBurner 3y ago

*only if your pockets are deep enough to afford to sue the corporations who are misusing your likelihood without your consent Having something ratified as a law makes any lawsuit a slam dunk and discourages abuse even by wealthy corporations.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> Having something ratified as a law makes any lawsuit a slam dunk No, it doesn't, otherwise there would be no lawsuits proceding to trial without settlement ubder established laws. Having law that (whether on its face or through case law) clearly applies to the situation that you claim occurred obviously helps, but it doesn't make any suit an automatic slam dunk.

dgrin91 3y ago

I think its too early to make that claim. Anyone can sue anyone else for pretty much anything. The question is will the case survive and have a reasonable chance of success? We might find out that this case dies in the first phases of proceedings because the law is not on Johansson's side.

fragmede 3y ago
Why would you suppose that? Broadly, celebrity likeness is a recognized legal concept prior to the advent of AI, so why would sprinkling magic AI dust on the case change things? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights

foxyv 3y ago

This makes me wonder, what will AI mean for professional impersonators? Is this the end of Saturday Night Live? Or will satire be considered fair use? I have a feeling we will definitely need some new legislation in the next 10 years for regulating AI.

omginternets 3y ago
The concept of "Fair Use" is well-established. Impersonators are safe, provided the work is "transformative". Satire is the textbook example of fair use.

dragonwriter 3y ago

What is less clear is whether existing criminal and tort law is adequate to cover trh concerns that arise with AI, but, yes, a lot of the things AI is being perceived as being abused for are at least on the fringes of existing legal regimes and may not need updates, or at least not major updates, to adequately handle them.

jowea 3y ago

That would be letting the courts interpret how the existing law applies to a new situation through. They may decide something that is not ideal.

jjk166 3y ago
From a legal standpoint it is not a new situation. If you create some novel invention and use it to rob a bank, the laws against robbery do not need reinterpretation.
omginternets 3y ago
>They may decide something that is not ideal. I don't follow your argument. That same problem applies to legislators and regulators. Also, I don't see any legal novelty. Same shit, different tech.
- jowea 3y ago
  Legislators are at least supposed to consider different positions, interests and consequences and decide in the interest of the citizenry. Courts are supposed to just look at the law and precedents. And I meant novelty for AI in general. This specific case does seem like same shit different tech.

anuraaga 3y ago

AI-specific regulation is needed for the same reasons that crypto related regulation is needed - the tech exists and anyone can do it to do bad things without being tracked. Murder is illegal but if there was a way to commit it without anyone knowing, it would become quite popular. In terms of deepfakes or crypto scams, in the end what we need it is more literacy on the matter, which won't prevent the ability for AI to do "things" but will let us acknowledge that's where we're at. Specific laws to get everyone on the same page on this is absolutely necessary.