The AI landscape is evolving rapidly. We share an overview of the latest legal and technical updates related to AI and other emerging technologies to keep you abreast of various developments.
AI’s “godfather” resigns from Google to warn against super-intelligent AI.
Deep learning and neural network pioneer Jeffrey Hinton has resigned from Google, citing concerns about the future of AI. Hinton said he worries about superintelligent AI taking control away from humans. Super-intelligent AI is a hypothetical advanced AI that surpasses human intelligence in all areas and has the potential to bring about significant changes in society and technology. Such AI is still hypothetical, but Hinton worries that super-intelligent AI could manipulate humans to achieve goals set by humans. But Hinton isn’t advocating the end of AI development. This is because AI development will bring enormous benefits to humanity (from supporting the development of new technologies to medical diagnosis). Instead, Hinton advocates devoting more resources to the field and international cooperation to mitigate the risks posed by AI.
Hinton’s comments come on the heels of dozens of AI experts signing an open letter calling for a moratorium on development beyond ChatGPT until robust security measures are put in place.
The U.S. Supreme Court upholds the human inventor requirement.
of sailor vs vidal (No. 22-919), Dr. Stephen Thaler has created two inventions created by his AI system named “Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Science (DABUS)” (“Neural Flame” and “Fractal Container”). ) attempted to obtain a patent. Thaler filed a patent application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) naming “DABUS” as the sole inventor. The US Patent and Trademark Office rejected Thaler’s patent application for failing to list a human being as an inventor. Dr. Thaler challenged this conclusion in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which agreed with his PTO and granted summary judgment. Thaler appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), which upheld the lower court’s decision, concluding that patent law requires an “inventor” to be a natural person.
Dr. Thaler argued that DABUS was the inventor because he was responsible for conceiving the invention, which is the definition of inventorship in patent law, but both the USPTO and the CAFC argued that human inventors were necessary. The U.S. Supreme Court also agreed. The rationale behind this decision was that patent law is meant to encourage human innovation, and patenting AI systems would not achieve the same result.
The U.S. Copyright Office has issued guidance on registering works containing AI-generated content.
The Copyright Office has issued a policy statement clarifying its practices for reviewing and registering works containing material generated through the use of AI technology. The Office reiterated that copyright can only protect material that is the product of human creativity, and that the term “author” in US copyright law does not include nonhumans.
This guidance requires applicants to disclose and briefly describe AI-generated content in works submitted for registration, and to briefly describe the contributions of human authors to the work. . In addition, content generated by AI minimal You must explicitly exclude it from your application. Applicants can claim copyright protection only for the human-created portion of the work.
For pending applications and issued registrations that do not comply with this new policy, the Secretariat recommends that corrective action be taken. Such actions include contacting the Office to amend a pending application or filing a petition for supplemental registration to amend an issued registration. Applicants who fail to update their public records after obtaining a registration of AI-generated material risk losing the benefits of registration.
In the future, the Copyright Office may issue additional guidance related to registration and other copyright issues involving AI technology.
The European Union (EU) AI law has advanced new copyright transparency requirements for AI.
Two years ago, the EU proposed a draft AI law aimed at introducing a common regulatory and legal framework for all types of AI applications in all fields except military. Recently, the draft AI law moved to the next stage of discussion, the three groups, where EU lawmakers and Member States will discuss the final details of the bill.
The AI Act categorizes AI applications by risk and regulates them accordingly. Low-risk applications are not regulated, medium- and high-risk applications require mandatory conformity assessment, and some critical applications are already subject to AI law requirements under existing EU law. conformity assessment based on The proposal prohibits certain types of applications, such as remote biometrics, unwitting human manipulation, harmful exploitation of vulnerabilities in certain groups, and social credit scoring. The AI Act proposes the introduction of a European Artificial Intelligence Commission to ensure regulatory compliance. The law uses a new legal framework to regulate entry into the EU internal market and mandates self-assessment or third-party assessment of conformity.
The newly proposed clause included a ban on copyrighted material used to train generative AIs like ChatGPT. However, to keep the EU at the forefront of AI technology regulation, a transparency requirement has been added requiring operators of AI platforms to disclose copyrighted material used to train their AI systems. rice field.
OpenAI (ChatGPT) meets EU data protection requirements.
Italian authorities took precautionary measures to block the use of ChatGPT in March. Data regulators in France, Germany, Ireland and Canada have also launched investigations into how OpenAI systems collect and use data. These actions were taken out of concern about potential privacy breaches and the indiscriminate collection of content containing personal data from the internet without proper consent.
Recently, OpenAI updated its privacy policy, clarifying details regarding the use of personal data and language model development, and making the privacy policy more visible during the sign-up process, complying with the request of the Italian Data Protection Authority (Garante). I complied. OpenAI also added age verification to the Italian welcome page and signup process, provided more information on user data management including how to export and delete ChatGPT data, and provided details on how user data can improve model performance. I have shared the details. Additionally, OpenAI has created opt-out settings (chat history and training options) for users who do not want their personal data used.
China introduces draft regulation on AI products.
China has released a draft regulation on regulation of AI products, requiring Chinese technology companies to register generative AI products with the country’s cyberspace agency and submit them to security assessments before launch. Companies are responsible for the “source validity of pre-training data” to ensure that the content reflects “core socialist values.” Companies are also required to ensure that AI does not call for things like “overthrowing state power” or overthrowing the ruling Chinese Communist Party. The rule was enacted as part of a broader regulatory crackdown on China’s high-tech industry.
China has so far regulated AI through personal information protection laws, cybersecurity laws, data security laws, and local policies such as the AI Industry Promotion Ordinance in Shanghai and Shenzhen Special Economic Zones.
