Expert opinions on Law

Congress commends the FCC for adopting a declaratory ruling effectively banning the use of AI-generated robocalls, but remains concerned that rapidly developing AI technology is becoming dangerously harder to detect.

Require Location Verification for Advanced AI Chips: The Department of Commerce must work to ensure America’s most advanced AI chips are not diverted to unauthorized regions and end up in the hands of our adversaries—especially those fueling military...

Enacting the current draft of the Chip Security Act (CSA) would erode trust and endanger the Administration’s vision to diffuse U.S. AI technology. Specifically, burdensome rules on U.S. companies not required for foreign competitors risk incentivizi...

Legal personhood does not free an entity from the law, it subjects it to the law. An AI-operated company with legal personhood has identifiable assets, centralized legal relationships, the possibility of dissolution, and executable property. Without ...

This Constitution recognizes three categories of constitutional persons: Operators, Agents, and Affected Parties. Each has distinct rights and obligations that together form a governance ecosystem. The Operator deploys and configures; the Agent acts ...

No. Under current U.S. law, AI agents have no legal rights and no legal personhood. They are treated as tools or property. Any rights or obligations associated with the AI agent’s actions belong to the humans or legal entities that deploy them.

AI governance must be overseen by randomly selected citizen councils (Human Firewall) rather than corporations or governments.

The NO FAKES Act advances both of those goals. By protecting individuals from the unauthorized use of their voices, images, and likenesses, the bill helps ensure that Americans retain meaningful control over their identities and creative contribution...

A handful of bills introduced this year seek to categorically ban “deepfakes.” In other words, these bills would make it unlawful to create or share AI-generated content depicting someone saying or doing something that the person did not in reality s...

Congress should enact legislation that bans the sale of cutting-edge AI chips to foreign adversaries and imposes stringent restrictions on less advanced yet still powerful semiconductors.

They would have to limit everything.

MEPs propose measures against malicious deepfakes and fraudulent ads.

A media environment with more false and deceptive information is not a good thing for our society, but it is not the government's job to fix it. [...] Let's trust the American people, not the government, to decide for themselves how AI should be used...

Legislate a Digital Duty of Care that puts the onus on AI companies to build in safety by design and proactively address potential harm.

Existing legal principles, such as under tort and contract law, can be applied by our courts to assess and determine liability in appropriate cases. That being said, we share the concerns raised by the Member, and will continue to study this issue, i...

States should not be permitted to penalize AI developers for a third party’s unlawful conduct involving their models.

The military has no interest in using AI to conduct mass surveillance of Americans (which is illegal) nor do we want to use AI to develop autonomous weapons that operate without human involvement.

The use of live facial recognition in our public spaces is an extraordinary expansion of state power that currently exists in a legal vacuum. We are not Luddites on these Benches; we recognise the utility of technology, but we must ensure that live f...

Prohibited practices shall include AI-enabled social scoring, indiscriminate biometric mass surveillance in public spaces without lawful authorization, and manipulative or deceptive AI systems that exploit vulnerabilities of individuals or groups.

It is impossible to design an objective or neutral risk profiling algorithm. Data about people is never objective. When governments use past social data to predict who is going to commit a crime such as fraud, they inevitably target individuals who b...

Officers across England and Wales will spend less time behind desks and more time protecting their communities, as the government today launches PoliceAI – a new national centre dedicated to the responsible development, piloting and scaling of artifi...

Biometric surveillance poses an urgent threat to our fundamental rights. Facial recognition and other biometric surveillance technologies have been used by authoritarian regimes around the world to target journalists, protestors, and marginalized com...

When I was in justice, my ultimate vision for that part of the criminal justice system was to achieve, by means of AI and technology, what Jeremy Bentham tried to do with his Panopticon. That is that the eyes of the state can be on you at all times. ...

If firms own the AGI systems that automate most economic activity, they may provide stipends, dividends or services to users, effectively becoming private welfare institutions. Economic efficiency may improve, but democratic accountability would weak...

Thanks to copyright restrictions that criminalize modifying apps without permission, there is no legal way for either drivers or riders to build comparison-shopping dashboards that bid out the same worker or job to multiple apps and choose from the c...

I’m in league with Doctorow and EFF on some of these things, but also find myself thinking they go much too far in other ways. At root, their work and advocacy raise a profound question: should there be any general right to exclude on digital platfor...