Author: Alyssa Linton

Completed Bibliography

November 25, 2024 / Alyssa Linton / 0 Comments

1 Statement of Jennifer E. Rothman Nicholas F. Gallicchio …, 2 Feb. 2024, rightofpublicityroadmap.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Rothman_Statement_Subcommittee-on-IP_February-2_2024_Submitted.pdf.

This PDF is a record of a formal statement made by Jennifer E. Rothman before the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet for the House of Representatives. Professor Rothman is the Nicholas F. Gallichio Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, and is considered to be the leading expert on identity and publicity rights. Considering her expertise, the aforementioned subcommittee for the House of Representatives invited her to testify to issues raised by AI and whether or not Congress should have a roll in addressing them. This hearing was particularly meant to shed light on the proposed “AI Fraud Act,” which is certainly does. Professor Rothman explicates overlooked issues with the AI Fraud Act through her critiques, providing important insight to the Bill. Overall, her statement will be very helpful in my review of the bill.

“Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights.” The White House, Oct. 2022, www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Blueprint-for-an-AI-Bill-of-Rights.pdf.

“Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights.” The White House, The United States Government, 22 Nov. 2023, www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/ai-bill-of-rights/.

“CDT and Civil Society Partners Urge Congress to Protect Artists, Creators, and Free Expression as It Examines Possible Misuse of AI Technologies .” Center for Democracy & Technology, 1 Feb. 2024, cdt.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Coalition-Letter-NO-AI-Fraud-Act-_-NO-FAKES-Act-2.1.2024-.pdf.

This source is essentially an open letter from various well know free speech and technology organizations (mostly non-profits) to Congress. In this letter, the companies urge congress not to pursue action with the proposed No AI Fraud Act. In this critique they point out the broad, vague, nature of the bill. Due to this nature, they claim that the bill could have larger implications than intended, potentially hindering free speech rights. One of the organizations who co-authored this letter is FIRE. The President of FIRE, Greg Lukianoff, recently spoke at The University of Oklahoma at an event I was in attendance for. Overall, these organizations raise valid concerns that will bring insight to my analysis of the proposed legislation.

Hlr. “Voluntary Commitments from Leading Artificial Intelligence Companies On.” Harvard Law Review, The Harvard Law Review Association, 10 Feb. 2024, harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-137/voluntary-commitments-from-leading-artificial-intelligence-companies-on-july-21-2023/.

This source is an online section of the Harvard Law Review, volume 137, issue 4. The Harvard Law Review is a “student-run journal of legal scholarship” in association with Harvard University. This particular article within the journal responds to the commitment made by several AI companies while convening in the White House to develop a system, such as watermarking, to label AI generated content. Thus changing the way we currently understand Copyright law. It also responds in part to the AI Bill of Rights published under the Biden-Harris Administration. What the article proposes may very well be the solution for many unprecedented legal issues with AI. It would provide the courts with a standard by which such cases should be determined, as well as more clearly define the liability held by AI companies and consumers. It also explicates the strengths and weaknesses of the AI Bill of Rights, providing a nuanced understanding of the document.

“Jennifer E. Rothman.” PennLaw, www.law.upenn.edu/faculty/rothmj. Accessed 25 Nov. 2024.

McSherry, Corynne. “Generative AI Policy Must Be Precise, Careful, and Practical: How to Cut through the Hype and Spot Potential Risks in New Legislation.” Electronic Frontier Foundation, 25 Sept. 2024, www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/07/generative-ai-policy-must-be-precise-careful-and-practical-how-cut-through-hype.

Salazar, Maria, and Madeleine Dean. No AI Fraud Act, 10 Jan. 2024, dean.house.gov/_cache/files/7/7/77047f57-f9f8-4ddb-9385-f4f82c7d22fd/090C34FC92DED2E83456EB85C8E64E44.no-ai-fraud-act.pdf.

This source is the first draft of the proposed No AI Fraud Act as it currently exists. The No AI Fraud Act is a bipartisan bill presented by Representatives Maria Salazar and Madeleine Dean to the House on January 10th, 2024. Though it is still in the early stages of review and revision, if passed into law it would create a “federal framework to protect Americans’ individual right to their likeness and voice against AI generated fakes and forgeries.” At the very onset of the bill, Representatives Salazar and Dean detail the ethical dilemmas spurred by generative AI. Specifically, deepfakes. This source is particularly helpful, as it dictates legal and ethical issues with AI that have not yet been outwardly publicized by courts currently considering such cases.

Final RP Proposal

November 20, 2024 / Alyssa Linton / 2 Comments

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.

Working Bibliography

November 15, 2024 / Alyssa Linton / 0 Comments

“Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights.” The White House, Oct. 2022, www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Blueprint-for-an-AI-Bill-of-Rights.pdf.

“Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights.” The White House, The United States Government, 22 Nov. 2023, www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/ai-bill-of-rights/.

This source is an online section of the Harvard Law Review, volume 137, issue 4. The Harvard Law Review is a “student-run journal of legal scholarship” in association with Harvard University. This particular article within the journal responds to the commitment made by several AI companies while convening in the White House to develop a system, such as watermarking, to label AI generated content. Thus changing the way we currently understand Copyright law. It also responds in part to the AI Bill of Rights published under the Biden-Harris Administration. What the article proposes may very well be the solution for many unprecedented legal issues with AI. It would provide the courts with a standard by which such cases should be determined, as well as more clearly define the liability held by AI companies and consumers. It also explicates the strengths and weaknesses of the AI Bill of Rights, providing a nuanced understanding of the document.

Salazar, Maria, and Madeleine Dean. No AI Fraud Act, 10 Jan. 2024, dean.house.gov/_cache/files/7/7/77047f57-f9f8-4ddb-9385-f4f82c7d22fd/090C34FC92DED2E83456EB85C8E64E44.no-ai-fraud-act.pdf.

This source is the first draft of the proposed No AI Fraud Act as it currently exists. The No AI Fraud Act is a bipartisan bill presented by Representatives Maria Salazar and Madeleine Dean to the House on January 10th, 2024. Though it is still in the early stages of review and revision, if passed into law it would create a “federal framework to protect Americans’ individual right to their likeness and voice against AI generated fakes and forgeries.” At the very onset of the bill, Representatives Salazar and Dean detail the ethical dilemmas spurred by generative AI. Specifically, deepfakes. This source is particularly helpful, as it dictates legal and ethical issues with AI that have not yet been outwardly publicized by courts currently considering such cases.

The Legality of Generative AI

November 12, 2024 / Alyssa Linton / 0 Comments

As with any groundbreaking innovation, the premier of generative AI opened the door to a plethora of unknown implications. Since its launch in 2022, there have been an eruption of concerns about ChatGPT and other large-scale generative AI programs. One central concern is whether or not such platforms are ethical. Regardless of their intended purpose, users have found ways to exploit AI in harmful ways. Many of which have been exposed and explored through the legal sphere. In fact, analyzing the legality surrounding AI platforms has further contributed to the conversation of ethics and AI.

For my research paper I would like to take a look a some of the public cases that have been brought against AI companies, as well as commentaries on such cases. Similarly, I would also like to look at different state bills that have been passed in response to generative AI. One specific source I want to explore is the court case the Actress Scarlett Johansson brought against OpenAI for mimicking her voice when launching their chat bot “Sky.” The main difficulty I anticipate with this topic is narrowing down the amount of sources at my disposal to the ones best suited for the paper. Overall, I am very excited to begin!

Aristotle’s Golden Mean

October 14, 2024 / Alyssa Linton / 1 Comment

Along the vein of ancient Athens, Aristotle is one of the most significant philosophical thinkers in history. Aristotle, who spent much time in Athens, was the student of Plato.

Why is Plato important you ask? Well, if you remember my previous blog post, you should recall the Sophist Movement. Plato was the first philosopher to substantially refute the Sophists’ claims about morality in his work, The Republic.

Aristotle, following after his teacher, takes to heart the idea of inherent justice and morality. He then presents a series of lectures that are later compiled into what is known as the Nicomachean Ethics. An idea from this work that I find most interesting is the concept of “the golden mean.” In day-to-day life, moral situations are not often black and white– there is moral grey. Whereas many philosophers in Aristotle’s time would say that there is either no morality or absolute right and wrong, he poses a different approach.

Aristotle starts with the virtues. Take, for example, courage. Now, put courage in the middle of a scale. On one side there is excess, and on the other, deficit. By creating this mental image, Aristotle illustrates the ideal and two extremes. Since it is much easier to grasp extremes and ideals, exemplifying those concepts provides context for understanding vague ideas such as “moral gray”. In action, it looks something like this: the ideal is courage, the excess is recklessness, and the deficit is cowardice.

For further reading: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/

Physis v.s. Nomos (The what and the who now??)

October 14, 2024 / Alyssa Linton / 1 Comment

During The Classical period in ancient Athens, an intellectual movement began with a group called the Sophists. The Sophists, translating roughly to “wisdom bankers,” were a group of highly educated thinkers who charged money for tutoring.

**Side note: up until this point, the people of Athens widely believed that wisdom should be shared freely. In fact, the term “Sophist” is meant to be an insult

The Sophists are most famous for their belief that there is no such thing as inherent morality or justice. Some famous sayings on this issue are “might makes right,” “there is no right or wrong, only can and cannot,” and “custom is king.” The core argument behind their belief lies in the concept of physis v.s. nomos. “Physis” is a Greek word meaning “nature.” Essentially, physis pertains to that which is inherent to the nature of the world. For example, math is a concept that exists in the very fiber of the universe. The Pythagorean Theorem is true anywhere at any time. One could change the variables or symbols, but a² + b² will still equal c² . On the flip side, “nomos” is a Greek word meaning “custom.” Nomos, then, refers to anything humans have created for the structure of society. For example, in America, we drive on the right side of the road. This rule was created out of convention to prevent car accidents. It is not inherently good or bad– it is simply one form of maintaining order. (In many other countries, it is custom to drive on the left side of the road!). Taking in the various cultural and religious practices that exist in the world, all of which claim moral grounds, the Sophists decided morality was more like nomos than physis.

Based on what I have briefly explained, what is your gut reaction? Do you think there’s no such thing as right and wrong? Are you unsettled, but not sure how to refute? Share your thoughts!

For further reading, look here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sophists/

Woah, woah, woah– slow down. What is The Great Conversation?

October 9, 2024 / Alyssa Linton / 1 Comment

First and foremost, allow me to explain what in the world The Great Conversation is. Though what it seeks to describe has existed for centuries, the term was coined in the 1950s by Robert M. Hutchins and Mortimer Adler. The idea is this: over the past 2,500 years (roughly), great thinkers have published works that explore and challenge fundamental ideas such as truth, beauty, goodness, justice, freedom– and so on. What is special about these works is that they do not exist independently from one another. Rather, each new generation of ideas builds upon and responds to a predecessor(s’), continuously broadening the horizons of human understanding…

Bored yet?

Imagine, for a moment, you are with that group of friends you share a single brain cell with. The group of friends you quote Tik-Tok audios with. While doing nothing in particular, one friend cracks a joke. An immediate eruption of laughter follows. Another friend adds to it, making the original premise even funnier. Another addition, and so on and so forth till suddenly you are all doubled over with laughter, unable to breath– a tear might even escape your eye. While The Great Conversation differs in a literal sense from this scenario, a similar sort of liveliness and satisfaction derives. I challenge you to consider such academic topics with this disposition.

And before you rule this out as something that pertains only to stuffy academics, let me ask you, what do you think of The Lord of The Rings? No, seriously! The books along with the films are adored by many members of Gen Z. But, did you know? The entire concept of the ring originally comes from Plato’s Republic circa ~375 B.C. It is not that The Great Conversation is irrelevant to your life. Quite the opposite. The truth is that your reality is inseparably linked to this dialogue, whether you are mindful of it or not. So, read books. Learn history. Watch films. AND talk about them! Know what it is that you think about these things. Do not live your life passively.

Generation Z, consider that it is almost our turn to participate. Will you have anything to say when the time arises?

Dear reader,

August 27, 2024 / Alyssa Linton

Hello! My name is Alyssa Linton. I am a second semester sophomore at The University of Oklahoma, and I am majoring in Letters: Constitutional Studies on the Pre-law track.

My time here at OU has, thus far, stoked the flames of my burning love for literature and philosophy. However, this is not the case for most of my peers. Which, to be sure, is no fault of the University. It is difficult indeed to stoke coals that have yet to meet a spark. Generation Z is largely uninterested in classical literature and historically significant thinkers. Most are unaware that such a thing as The Great Conversation exists. Yet, regardless of the competition social media and short attention spans pose, I believe that hope is not lost. Within this blog space, it is my sincere desire to concisely bring to life aspects of The Great Conversation, while still maintaining the integrity of the great thinkers I intend to represent. For as Socrates said “the unexamined life is not worth living.”