-
Report of the 1st Workshop on Generative AI and Law
Authors:
A. Feder Cooper,
Katherine Lee,
James Grimmelmann,
Daphne Ippolito,
Christopher Callison-Burch,
Christopher A. Choquette-Choo,
Niloofar Mireshghallah,
Miles Brundage,
David Mimno,
Madiha Zahrah Choksi,
Jack M. Balkin,
Nicholas Carlini,
Christopher De Sa,
Jonathan Frankle,
Deep Ganguli,
Bryant Gipson,
Andres Guadamuz,
Swee Leng Harris,
Abigail Z. Jacobs,
Elizabeth Joh,
Gautam Kamath,
Mark Lemley,
Cass Matthews,
Christine McLeavey,
Corynne McSherry
, et al. (10 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
This report presents the takeaways of the inaugural Workshop on Generative AI and Law (GenLaw), held in July 2023. A cross-disciplinary group of practitioners and scholars from computer science and law convened to discuss the technical, doctrinal, and policy challenges presented by law for Generative AI, and by Generative AI for law, with an emphasis on U.S. law in particular. We begin the report…
▽ More
This report presents the takeaways of the inaugural Workshop on Generative AI and Law (GenLaw), held in July 2023. A cross-disciplinary group of practitioners and scholars from computer science and law convened to discuss the technical, doctrinal, and policy challenges presented by law for Generative AI, and by Generative AI for law, with an emphasis on U.S. law in particular. We begin the report with a high-level statement about why Generative AI is both immensely significant and immensely challenging for law. To meet these challenges, we conclude that there is an essential need for 1) a shared knowledge base that provides a common conceptual language for experts across disciplines; 2) clarification of the distinctive technical capabilities of generative-AI systems, as compared and contrasted to other computer and AI systems; 3) a logical taxonomy of the legal issues these systems raise; and, 4) a concrete research agenda to promote collaboration and knowledge-sharing on emerging issues at the intersection of Generative AI and law. In this report, we synthesize the key takeaways from the GenLaw workshop that begin to address these needs. All of the listed authors contributed to the workshop upon which this report is based, but they and their organizations do not necessarily endorse all of the specific claims in this report.
△ Less
Submitted 2 December, 2023; v1 submitted 10 November, 2023;
originally announced November 2023.
-
Freedom of Speech and AI Output
Authors:
Eugene Volokh,
Mark Lemley,
Peter Henderson
Abstract:
Is the output of generative AI entitled to First Amendment protection? We're inclined to say yes. Even though current AI programs are of course not people and do not themselves have constitutional rights, their speech may potentially be protected because of the rights of the programs' creators. But beyond that, and likely more significantly, AI programs' speech should be protected because of the r…
▽ More
Is the output of generative AI entitled to First Amendment protection? We're inclined to say yes. Even though current AI programs are of course not people and do not themselves have constitutional rights, their speech may potentially be protected because of the rights of the programs' creators. But beyond that, and likely more significantly, AI programs' speech should be protected because of the rights of their users-both the users' rights to listen and their rights to speak. In this short Article, we sketch the outlines of this analysis.
△ Less
Submitted 16 August, 2023;
originally announced August 2023.
-
Where's the Liability in Harmful AI Speech?
Authors:
Peter Henderson,
Tatsunori Hashimoto,
Mark Lemley
Abstract:
Generative AI, in particular text-based "foundation models" (large models trained on a huge variety of information including the internet), can generate speech that could be problematic under a wide range of liability regimes. Machine learning practitioners regularly "red team" models to identify and mitigate such problematic speech: from "hallucinations" falsely accusing people of serious miscond…
▽ More
Generative AI, in particular text-based "foundation models" (large models trained on a huge variety of information including the internet), can generate speech that could be problematic under a wide range of liability regimes. Machine learning practitioners regularly "red team" models to identify and mitigate such problematic speech: from "hallucinations" falsely accusing people of serious misconduct to recipes for constructing an atomic bomb. A key question is whether these red-teamed behaviors actually present any liability risk for model creators and deployers under U.S. law, incentivizing investments in safety mechanisms. We examine three liability regimes, tying them to common examples of red-teamed model behaviors: defamation, speech integral to criminal conduct, and wrongful death. We find that any Section 230 immunity analysis or downstream liability analysis is intimately wrapped up in the technical details of algorithm design. And there are many roadblocks to truly finding models (and their associated parties) liable for generated speech. We argue that AI should not be categorically immune from liability in these scenarios and that as courts grapple with the already fine-grained complexities of platform algorithms, the technical details of generative AI loom above with thornier questions. Courts and policymakers should think carefully about what technical design incentives they create as they evaluate these issues.
△ Less
Submitted 16 August, 2023; v1 submitted 8 August, 2023;
originally announced August 2023.
-
Foundation Models and Fair Use
Authors:
Peter Henderson,
Xuechen Li,
Dan Jurafsky,
Tatsunori Hashimoto,
Mark A. Lemley,
Percy Liang
Abstract:
Existing foundation models are trained on copyrighted material. Deploying these models can pose both legal and ethical risks when data creators fail to receive appropriate attribution or compensation. In the United States and several other countries, copyrighted content may be used to build foundation models without incurring liability due to the fair use doctrine. However, there is a caveat: If t…
▽ More
Existing foundation models are trained on copyrighted material. Deploying these models can pose both legal and ethical risks when data creators fail to receive appropriate attribution or compensation. In the United States and several other countries, copyrighted content may be used to build foundation models without incurring liability due to the fair use doctrine. However, there is a caveat: If the model produces output that is similar to copyrighted data, particularly in scenarios that affect the market of that data, fair use may no longer apply to the output of the model. In this work, we emphasize that fair use is not guaranteed, and additional work may be necessary to keep model development and deployment squarely in the realm of fair use. First, we survey the potential risks of develo** and deploying foundation models based on copyrighted content. We review relevant U.S. case law, drawing parallels to existing and potential applications for generating text, source code, and visual art. Experiments confirm that popular foundation models can generate content considerably similar to copyrighted material. Second, we discuss technical mitigations that can help foundation models stay in line with fair use. We argue that more research is needed to align mitigation strategies with the current state of the law. Lastly, we suggest that the law and technical mitigations should co-evolve. For example, coupled with other policy mechanisms, the law could more explicitly consider safe harbors when strong technical tools are used to mitigate infringement harms. This co-evolution may help strike a balance between intellectual property and innovation, which speaks to the original goal of fair use. But we emphasize that the strategies we describe here are not a panacea and more work is needed to develop policies that address the potential harms of foundation models.
△ Less
Submitted 27 March, 2023;
originally announced March 2023.
-
Is Patent Law Technology Specific?
Authors:
Dan L. Burk,
Mark A. Lemley
Abstract:
Although patent law purports to cover all manner of technologies, we have noticed recent divergence in the standards applied to biotechnology and to software patents: the Federal Circuit has applied a very permissive standard of obviousness in biotechnology, but a highly restrictive disclosure requirement. The opposite holds true for software patents, which seems to us exactly contrary to sound…
▽ More
Although patent law purports to cover all manner of technologies, we have noticed recent divergence in the standards applied to biotechnology and to software patents: the Federal Circuit has applied a very permissive standard of obviousness in biotechnology, but a highly restrictive disclosure requirement. The opposite holds true for software patents, which seems to us exactly contrary to sound policy for either industry. These patent standards are grounded in the legal fiction of the "person having ordinary skill in the art" or PHOSITA. We discuss the appropriateness of the PHOSITA standard, concluding that it properly lends flexibility to the patent system. We then discuss the difficulty of applying this standard in different industries, offering suggestions as to how it might be modified to avoid the problems seen in biotechnology and software patents.
△ Less
Submitted 26 September, 2001; v1 submitted 25 September, 2001;
originally announced September 2001.
-
ICANN and Antitrust
Authors:
A. Michael Froomkin,
Mark A. Lemley
Abstract:
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is a private non-profit company which, pursuant to contracts with the US government, acts as the de facto regulator for DNS policy. ICANN decides what TLDs will be made available to users, and which registrars will be permitted to offer those TLDs for sale. In this article we focus on a hitherto-neglected implication of ICANN's asse…
▽ More
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is a private non-profit company which, pursuant to contracts with the US government, acts as the de facto regulator for DNS policy. ICANN decides what TLDs will be made available to users, and which registrars will be permitted to offer those TLDs for sale. In this article we focus on a hitherto-neglected implication of ICANN's assertion that it is a private rather than a public actor: its potential liability under the U.S. antitrust laws, and the liability of those who transact with it. ICANN argues that it is not as closely tied to the government as NSI and IANA were in the days before ICANN was created. If this is correct, it seems likely that ICANN will not benefit from the antitrust immunity those actors enjoyed. Some of ICANN's regulatory actions may restrain competition, e.g. its requirement that applicants for new gTLDs demonstrate that their proposals would not enable competitive (alternate) roots and ICANN's preventing certain types of non-price competition among registrars (requiring the UDRP). ICANN's rule adoption process might be characterized as anticompetitive collusion by existing registrars, who are likely not be subject to the Noerr-Pennington lobbying exemption. Whether ICANN has in fact violated the antitrust laws depends on whether it is an antitrust state actor, whether the DNS is an essential facility, and on whether it can shelter under precedents that protect standard-setting bodies. If (as seems likely) a private ICANN and those who petition it are subject to antitrust law, everyone involved in the process needs to review their conduct with an eye towards legal liability. ICANN should act very differently with respect to both the UDRP and the competitive roots if it is to avoid restraining trade.
△ Less
Submitted 24 September, 2001;
originally announced September 2001.
-
Antitrust, Intellectual Property and Standard-Setting Organizations
Authors:
Mark A. Lemley
Abstract:
Standard-setting organizations (SSOs) regularly encounter situations in which one or more companies claim to own proprietary rights that cover a proposed industry standard. The industry cannot adopt the standard without the permission of the intellectual property owner (or owners).
How SSOs respond to those who assert intellectual property rights is critically important. Whether or not private…
▽ More
Standard-setting organizations (SSOs) regularly encounter situations in which one or more companies claim to own proprietary rights that cover a proposed industry standard. The industry cannot adopt the standard without the permission of the intellectual property owner (or owners).
How SSOs respond to those who assert intellectual property rights is critically important. Whether or not private companies retain intellectual property rights in group standards will determine whether a standard is "open" or "closed." It will determine who can sell compliant products, and it may well influence whether the standard adopted in the market is one chosen by a group or one offered by a single company. SSO rules governing intellectual property rights will also affect how standards change as technology improves.
Given the importance of SSO rules governing intellectual property rights, there has been surprisingly little treatment of SSOs or their intellectual property rules in the legal literature. My aim in this article is to fill that void. To do so, I have surveyed the intellectual property policies of dozens of SSOs, primarily but not exclusively in the computer networking and telecommunications industries.
△ Less
Submitted 19 September, 2001;
originally announced September 2001.
