There is no mistaken that Artificial Intelligence is taking a hold of the world. By storm even. It is yet another digital leap forward. An eye is being kept on just how far AI will become integrated into daily life within the economy, education, and the field of law, which is the topic of discussion herewith.
Artificial intelligence is a fluctuating industry, embedding itself in many ways. The use of artificial intelligence has grown to a great extent. This can be seen through the United States, being a good example of the use of artificial intelligence through the automatization of tasks, reporting duties, even delivery of legal arguments. One such example expands to an Artificial Intelligence Attorney.
There recently even occurred a scenario whereby an individual representing himself in Court, likely to nervous to plead his own case, created an artificial intelligence programmed video of himself [Although clearly a bit cartoonish looking], to speak on his own behalf. What could be even a bit stranger was a criminal case where the victim was posthumously turned into an Artificial Intelligence character, and which later spoke to his murderer in Court as part of a victim impact statement. What these situations however do show, AI is becoming more common place by the day. It is the new norm to which the legal sphere is quickly supposed to adopt and adapt.
Serious questions have been posed in respect of control, legislation, regulation and otherwise management of what happens when arguments arise involving artificial intelligence. Take the Artificial Attorney for example – If it writes an opinion on a prospective client’s case, who actually owns the “works” done? What happens if its opinion was wrong, undeveloped or unresearched? What are the ethical implications of being advised by artificial intelligence which did not have the opportunity to study, acquire a degree, and eventually be deemed fit to practice law?
The short answer for South Africans is that there are no official legislative measures or “Rules” in place. South Africa has however kept trend through its inclusive measures as part of the OECD Council, particularly its Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence. This has also included a further introduction of the Cybersecurity Bill [Not yet enacted] but which has been proposed.
One further issue which has cropped up, is who owns the works done by Artificial Intelligence. To this end we look at the Copyright Act, 198 of 1978. Ownership of copyright is, normally, conferred upon the author of the works. The author of a computer program is defined to “the person who exercised control over the making of the computer program.”. This however becomes a debate, albeit metaphysically poised to scholarly philosophy whether an artificial intelligence could be considered an author themselves. The other simplistic consideration could be that artificial intelligence is just the same as a paint brush to an artist. Whomsoever used the AI to make a literally, artistic, musical or other set of works, is still the author.
The simple answer is, there is not yet any real answer. The expansion of artificial intelligence demands more serious regulations to be put into place. The questions that are being asked to have not yet become so prevalent that someone has stood up having to answer them.
