The breakthrough of AI as a new and powerful technology has launched the 21st century into uncharted waters. The full capabilities of AI are, at present, unrecognized. Nonetheless, within the two years since AI’s initial launch, its discovered uses have brought an onslaught of praise, criticism, and concern. While the mild side of AI looks like edited papers, chatbots, and PDF summaries, the more nefarious side looks like sexually explicit deepfakes, copyright infringements, and other various threats to individual liberty. In fact, many court cases have come against AI companies on these exact grounds. The problem, however, is that the legality of AI technology lacks precedent, resulting in more questions than answers in the court room. Such as, who really owns AI prompted productions? What constitutes ethical training of AI technology? Who’s responsible for explicit images generated by AI? In my research paper I will venture to explore these questions in the legal context, as well as the current state of proposed AI legislation, and the implications of such legislation.
Seeing as this is a research paper, my sources will be front and center as topic of discussion. The proposed No AI Fraud Act will be an “exhibit” kind of source. The No AI Fraud Act, if it is to pass, would change the way users presently interact with AI. It would also add a protection to individual rights that could potentially be cited as precedent in cases not necessarily relating to AI. It’s an exciting new piece of legislation, and one that is important to understand in its fully capacity. The No AI Fraud Act also acts as a “motive” source, since, in the beginning of the bill examples of harmful content generated by AI is presented. A second source that will be quite helpful to my paper is the Harvard Law Review journal on copyright and AI. This source will also be an “exhibit” source as what it proposes might very well answer many of the legal questions concerning AI.
I would like to see you go more in-depth about other cases related to the No AI Fraud Act, not just that specific case. With that said, a specific question you could use as a means of answering could be; How will you address how well current AI-related laws are dealing with problems like explicit material and copyright infringement, and how would this comparison help you analyze the No AI Fraud Act?
Building on Jalen’s comment, a question that might be worth answering in writing is, “Why the No Fraud Act in particular?” That is, of course you have time and space limitations and a need to focus a topic: this is one possible focus. But try to let your readers know as early as possible why this particular legislative proposal, with its focus on “fraud,” has gained attention and supporters, and why you think it demands / is worthy of closer examination…