The opaque law of artificial intelligence

Vincenzo Calderonio
2024-03-23
Abstract:The purpose of this paper is to analyse the opacity of algorithms, contextualized in the open debate on responsibility for artificial intelligence causation; with an experimental approach by which, applying the proposed conversational methodology of the Turing Test, we expect to evaluate the performance of one of the best existing NLP model of generative AI (Chat-GPT) to see how far it can go right now and how the shape of a legal regulation of it could be. The analysis of the problem will be supported by a comment of Italian classical law categories such as causality, intent and fault to understand the problem of the usage of AI, focusing in particular on the human-machine interaction. On the computer science side, for a technical point of view of the logic used to craft these algorithms, in the second chapter will be proposed a practical interrogation of Chat-GPT aimed at finding some critical points of the functioning of AI. The end of the paper will concentrate on some existing legal solutions which can be applied to the problem, plus a brief description of the approach proposed by EU Artificial Intelligence act.
Artificial Intelligence
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The paper discusses the issue of opacity of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms, particularly in the context of legal responsibility challenges. The author evaluates the performance of the generative AI model Chat-GPT using the Turing Test through experimental methods to understand its workings and analyze the degree of human control over it. The paper points out that the black box effect of AI algorithms poses challenges in attributing responsibility, as machine learning techniques make it unpredictable how the algorithms generate outputs internally. From a legal standpoint, the problem lies in determining responsibility when AI causes harm. Due to the fact that AI behavior is not entirely controlled by humans, traditional legal theories of responsibility such as causality and intent may not be applicable. The paper cites relevant provisions of Italian criminal law and illustrates the interruption of legal responsibility through graphics, emphasizing the continuity of causal chains and the rupture of psychological elements. AI executions may exceed human expectations and lead to unforeseen outcomes, creating a responsibility gap in legal terms. The paper also discusses generative AI, particularly large language models (LLM), and how they create content by identifying patterns, which exacerbates the complexity of black box issues in the real world. The generated content may trigger new causal dynamics, increasing uncertainty in human responsibility. Lastly, the paper mentions the European Union's AI Act as a potential solution, which attempts to establish a legal framework for traceability and human oversight of high-risk AI systems to address legal responsibility issues.