Do we really need 'arranging it'?

Do we really need ‘arranging it’? – artificial lawyer

In the US, the Republicans of the house have added a proposed 10-year ban on regulating it in large part of tax legislation. Meanwhile, the EU already wants to ‘re-make’ the act of it, potentially irrigating it. And the United Kingdom is nowhere to go nowhere to make new laws for Him. But… what if it is okay?

In fact, what if we don’t need to ‘fix it’? What if arranging something as amorphous as ‘he’ is like trying to fix the alphabet?

It means, First we need to be focused on the results, then consider whether there are laws that already cover those phenomena.

Here are some examples:

Copyright – now, really bothered me for a time when I discovered that Openai had trained her LLM on Artificial Lawyer without asking – along with most world websites …!

But two things have somehow mistreated me since that time: 1) Openai and other pages of he like confusion are sending traffic to my website, and their inclusion of references for AL can be seen in a positive light, and 2) if you ask chatgt for an article in a newspaper or blog, this may not give you all, but will not give you all then The website (or on the blog I may have seen), this can summarize its share, but it means that it cannot give you everything, and it will be then you will show you online (or online (on the blog, which you may have seen part of it, but it means that it cannot give you all, and it will be on the website (or online).

In which case, is this the matter? If ABC Corp. LLM would begin to copy and then reproduce articles by a media company, then this would be a copyright violation – pure and simple. You do not need a ‘law of he’ for that. The same goes for music and books.

Now, again, does it hurt me to see how someone has created a ‘Phoney’ book that effectively copies the style and content of a famous author using it? Yes. But again, if Mr. ABC copies Harry Potter so close that it looks like a violation, then you can bet that traditional roads will be open.

So… ..Has he probably makes people ‘lazy’ in terms of thinking and creativity? Yes, too much, if one allows himself to go on that path. But it is difficult to legitimize the taste of mankind for short cuts.

Safety and face recognition – now, this was what made me support the EU act when it came out for the first time. I have never been a fan of the dystopies described in 1984 AND The new bold world – (though some clearly see those books as ‘how to guide’ about how to run a country, rather than warn of what to avoid.) Prohibition of using it for a whole range of things that can impose on our lives, so it seemed very sensitive.

But …… ..I is just a tool, a method, to get the result, e.g. scanning everyone’s faces as they get into a bus even if they don’t want you to do it. Is that fault of him, or the government, the city, the bus company, etc. that allowed this?

Is it ‘that’ the cause of this, or is it the bureaucrat who better fantasizes the idea of being able to look at the population as if we were all only one bunch of zoos? I would say the latter. Facial recognition he is just the tool used to conquer our lives but is an organization that decides to do such things. That is, a law against organizations that collect facial data will generally be enough, and then there is no need to choose it.

And we can see the same with many other areas. For example, Should we allow autonomous weapons? Well, they don’t need to be him. Isn’t a land mine an autonomous weapon – you violate it, kills you, without asking questions, no rules are followed? Isn’t it a team with a scratching finger while it is out and around without any rules of commitment also quite similar – and also a risk to everyone? Again, is it the tool, or is it someone who makes a decision to make X in a certain way is okay that is at fault?

I do not claim to have the legal knowledge of a Supreme Court judge, but this is only what seems obvious from a perspective of common sense. (And my opinion can evolve again.) What do you think?

Any way, the debate over the regulation is forced to run and run… .It something even bigger than LLMS comes together… .but, it seems that we are probably approaching this without thinking through the practical realities of ‘regulation’.

–

PS Re. US change. The new text added to the tax invoice – which of course cannot pass and thus will not become law – includes the following formulation, which came from the Energy and Trade Committee:

‘Subsection (c) states that no state or political subdivision can implement any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems or automated decision systems During the 10-year period starting from the date of adoption of this law.

The subsection (D) provides definitions of the main terms used in the act, including “artificial intelligence”, “artificial intelligence model”, “artificial intelligence system” and “automated decision system”.

And it is worth saying that this definition of ‘he’ is so wide that it will include Google’s search and also my iPhone, which automatically makes many decisions for me, including the discoloration after 10:00 am.

PPS and when it comes to the lawyers they use… ..Agni, isn’t there enough rules there already? For example, When a lawyer gives a client a legal document they have written, is there no duty to make sure they have their basic fair facts? Where do you say in any bar rules that is okay to create things? Ked, Old rules still work even when we add to the mix. What we really need is more education on how to use these tools.

–

Richard Tromans, Founder, Artificial Lawyer, May 2025

–

Legal Innovators Conference in California, San Francisco, June 11 + 12

If you are interested in the advantage of legal and innovation – and where we are all going – Then come to the legal innovators California, in San Francisco, June 11 and 12, where speakers from the main law firms, inboh teams and technology companies will share their knowledge and experiences about what is really happening.

We already have an extraordinary list of companies to hear. This includes: & He, Legora, Harvey, Structureflow, Ivo, Flation Law Group, Pointton, Centar, Lexisnexis, Ebrevia, Legatics, Knowable, Draftwise, Newcode.ai, Riskaway, SimpleClurse and more.

Cooley, Wilson Sonsini, Baker McKenzie, Gunderson, Ropes & Gray, A&O Shearman and many other major legal firms will also participate.