Dr. Sam Vaknin: The Legal Derivatives of Invented Technologies
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/06/17
Sam Vaknin is the author of Malignant Self-love: Narcissism Revisited as well as many other books and ebooks about topics in psychology, relationships, philosophy, economics, international affairs, and award-winning short fiction. He is former Visiting Professor of Psychology, Southern Federal University, Rostov-on-Don, Russia and on the faculty of CIAPS (Commonwealth Institute for Advanced and Professional Studies). He is a columnist in Brussels Morning, was the Editor-in-Chief of Global Politician, and served as a columnist for Central Europe Review, PopMatters, eBookWeb, and Bellaonline, and as a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent. He was the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory and Suite101. His YouTube channels garnered 80,000,000 views and 405,000 subscribers. Visit Sam’s Web site: http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Technologies integrated with human cultures continually make new laws, even creating entirely new frames of legal discourse. What have been some of the more disruptive forms of technology to legal systems, philosophies of law?
Dr. Sam Vaknin: Every technology necessitated a revision of existing laws to incorporate its unique features. The more disruptive the technology, the more profound the legal revisions: the printing press, for example, or the telegraph, telephone, automobile, Internet, social media, smartphone, and so on.
Jacobsen: What role does invention play in the creation of new laws, policies, even whole new legal systems of consideration in governance?
Vaknin: I dispute this claim or premise. Technology does not spur legal innovations or revolutions. Consider crime: contemporary technologies simply allow us to commit age-old offenses in new ways.
New technologies do force laws and regulations to become a lot more detailed and specific in order to accommodate their idiosyncrasies, but there is no paradigmatic shift involved.
Jacobsen: We talked about human-machine interfaces. What is the past of law regarding human use of technologies?
Vaknin: Laws, past and present, have dealt mostly with the adverse outcomes, actual and potential, of using technology. As technologies became more sophisticated, though, their unintended consequences became less predictable and the Law had to play catchup and whack-a-mole with those.
Jacobsen: Of modern communications technologies, what have required the most ubiquitous change in law?
Vaknin: The telegraph and the radio were the most disruptive technologies with the Internet a close third. The abolition of distance by the first two and the egalitarianism fostered by the latter served to undermine many erstwhile legal tenets and conceptual pillars.
Jacobsen: With narrow AI in many facets of life, quietly, and more obviously such as LLMs, what are some necessary changes to law for protection of copyright and plagiarism? Linguist Noam Chomsky is reported to have said, “Let’s stop calling it ‘Artificial Intelligence’ and call it what it is: ‘plagiarism software.’ Don’t create anything, copy existing works from existing artists and alter it sufficiently to escape copyright laws. It’s the largest theft of property ever since Native American lands by European settlers.” You had him in your list of geniuses. What will be the outcome of the theft of intellectual property to create some of these algorithms?
Vaknin: I completely disagree with this way of looking at things. I don’t see even a hint of these legal issues or ostensible transgressions with large language models. AI generates derivative works based on databases of texts, but does not reprint or replicate these texts verbatim. It learns from texts but does not plagiarize them in the strict legal sense (except in rare cases).
There is definitely an ethical conundrum here, but not a legal one. Still, this ethical dilemma arises also with cliff notes or Blinkist or parodies or any creative work inspired by another. Chomsky’s own work relies on the oeuvre of previous scholars!
Jacobsen: What will be the future of the discourse between increasing intimate contact, even fusion, with synthetic systems and the law? When digital conscious systems become more fully decoupled from human control – degrees of autonomous, what will this mean for both the concept of personhood and the idea, not only human rights but, rights attributed to agents more broadly?
Vaknin: At some point, we would need to generalize the language of the Law to apply it equally to all forms of intelligences with agency, including cyborgs, androids, and artificial intelligence. Sentience, not carbon content, would become the test of applicability of laws, norms, rules, and regulations.
Who would enforce these carbon-blind laws would become a major point of contention. We are having a hard time coping with driverless cars. How well would we adapt to non-human cops and judges?
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Sam.
Vaknin: Thank you as ever, Scott.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
In-Sight Publishing 