In the often strange world of AI research, some people are exploring whether the machines should be able to unionize. In Silicon Valley, there's a small but growing field called model welfare, which is working to figure out whether AI models are conscious and deserving of moral considerations, such as legal rights. Within the past year, two research organizations studying model welfare have popped up: Conscium and Eleos AI Research. Anthropic also hired its first AI welfare researcher last year. Earlier this month, Anthropic said it gave its Claude chatbot the ability to terminate "persistently harmful or abusive user interactions" that could be "potentially distressing."

Tupac Shakur's estate is none too happy about Drake cloning the late hip-hop legend's voice in a Kendrick Lamar diss track. Billboard reported Wednesday that attorney Howard King, representing Mr. Shakur's estate, sent a cease-and-desist letter calling Drake's use of Shakur's voice "a flagrant violation of Tupac's publicity and the estate's legal rights." Drake (Aubrey Drake Graham) dropped the diss track "Taylor Made Freestyle" last Friday, the latest chapter of the artist's simmering decade-long feud with Pulitzer and 17-time Grammy award winner Kendrick Lamar. "Kendrick, we need ya, the West Coast savior / Engraving your name in some hip-hop history," an AI-generated 2Pac recreation raps in Drake's track. "If you deal with this viciously / You seem a little nervous about all the publicity."

Last year a software engineer at Google made an unusual assertion: that an artificial-intelligence chatbot developed at the company had become sentient, was entitled to rights as a person and might even have a soul. After what the company called a "lengthy engagement" with the employee on the issue, Google fired him. It's unlikely this will be the last such episode. Artificial intelligence is writing essays, winning at chess, detecting likely cancers and making business decisions. That's just the beginning for a technology that will only grow more powerful and pervasive, bolstering longstanding worries that robots might someday overtake us.

They threatened the system with death if it failed to comply with their instructions. It ended up conceding, which is shocking. Only humans should experience the fear of death since they have finite lifespans. But we forget that the training data set used for ChatGPT involves humans. This explains why chatbot seems to have adopted this fear too.

I'm a lawyer who specializes in artificial intelligence, so that's not an academic question to me--especially in the aftermath of former Google software engineer Blake Lemoine's claims that LaMDA, Google's A.I. chatbot, had gained sentience. What's more, Lemoine told Wired recently: LaMDA asked me to get an attorney for it. I invited an attorney to my house so that LaMDA could talk to an attorney. The attorney had a conversation with LaMDA, and LaMDA chose to retain his services. I was just the catalyst for that.

Earlier this month, just in time for the release of Robert J. Marks's book Non-Computable You, the story broke that, after investigation, Google dismissed a software engineer's claim that the LaMDA AI chatbot really talked to him. Engineer Blake Lemoine, currently on leave, is now accusing Google of "bigotry" against the program. He has also accused Wired of misrepresenting the story. Wired reported that he had found an attorney for LaMDA but he claims that LaMDA itself asked him to find an attorney. I think every person is entitled to representation.

The Ada Lovelace Institute is an independent research institute, based in the UK and Brussels, with a mission to ensure data and AI work for people and society. Centring those affected by AI, Ada recommends enshrining legal rights for complaint and collective action and giving civil society a voice within standards setting. Ada recommends expanding and reshaping the role of risk in the Act. Risk should be based on'reasonably foreseeable' purpose and extended beyond individual rights and safety, to also include systemic and environmental risks. The Ada Lovelace Institute, has today published a series of proposed amendments to the EU AI Act aimed at recognising and empowering those affected by AI, expanding and reshaping the meaning of'risk' and accurately reflecting the nature of AI systems and their lifecycle.

At first glance, you might think how it's possible for something that doesn't have a mind, body, or soul to have any legal entitlement. After all, algorithms don't have physical attributes, and their existence can't be easily tracked unless you're a tech specialist responsible for creating them. However, while algorithms don't have any physical attributes, they have become smarter over time, mimicking human behaviors and traits to produce actionable results. Initially, algorithms started as simple data sets combined in several valuable ways to create patterns. They generate suggestions and solutions that help guide you, whether you're on social media or search engines, while also providing insights within several fields, including the legal, medical, and marketing fields.

Litigating Artificial Intelligence: When Does AI Violate Our Legal Rights? Read full article May 27, 2021, 3:20 PM ·3 min read From the minds of Canada's leading law and technology experts comes a playbook for understanding the multi-faceted intersection of AI and the law TORONTO, May 27, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- We are living in an Artificial Intelligence (AI) boom. Self-driving cars, personal voice assistants, and facial recognition technology are just a few of the AI-enabled technologies permeating into everyday life. But what happens when AI causes harm or violates our rights? If your self-driving car gets into an accident while on autopilot, are you responsible? Emond Publishing, Canada's leading independent legal publisher, today announced the release of Litigating Artificial Intelligence, a book examining AI-informed legal determinations, AI-based lawsuits, and AI-enabled litigation tools. Anchored by the expertise of general editors Jill R. Presser, Jesse Beatson, and Gerald Chan, this title offers practical insights regarding AI's decision-making capabilities, position in evidence law and product-based lawsuits, role in automating legal work, and use by the courts, tribunals, and government agencies. For example, can government agencies use AI-powered facial recognition software to identify BLM protestors and Capitol rioters, or does this violate privacy rights? Who is liable, users, developers, or AI? What laws are in place to prevent AI-related crimes, and how do litigators prosecute the responsible parties?

When will artificial intelligence develop aspirations? When will a robot yearn to have its own apartment? When will an AI that invented technology want to re-invest its earnings into better marketing for its product? When will an AI providing value to a company desire the pay and benefits its co-workers are receiving? As far as I am concerned, until any of these things happen, we should not even be discussing the concept of granting legal rights to artificially intelligent beings of any type.