Carolin Kemper | Deutsches Forschungsinstitut für öffentliche Verwaltung Speyer (FÖV) / German Research Institute for Public Administration Speyer (original) (raw)
Papers by Carolin Kemper
Prometheus
This is a condensation of the same authors' Research Handbook on the Law of Artificial Intelligen... more This is a condensation of the same authors' Research Handbook on the Law of Artificial Intelligence (2018), which presents legal issues arising from the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) to a broad audience. Barfield and Pagallo wrote this abridged version to offer an easily accessible introduction to law and AI for law students, legal practitioners and non-legal experts. AI is pervading business as well as our social and private lives-up to the point where we interact with some form of AI daily. These systems are becoming increasingly smart, and we must deal with the consequences of their incremental autonomy. Our legal systems are not yet equipped to handle these novel challenges and are in need of new and innovative regulatory strategies. The authors start with a brief account of the fundamental concepts of AI to introduce lawyers to the subject matter. Subsequently, they explain relevant legal notions and legal situations in a comprehensible manner for both law students and non-lawyers. They present a concise overview of human rights frameworks and constitutional law, although their emphasis is on business-related law (data protection, intellectual property, antitrust and business law). In doing so, they analyse EU and US law comparatively, which provides valuable insights for law students into other legal systems as well as a felicitous approach to discussion of different regulatory strategies.
International Cybersecurity Law Review, 2022
ZusammenfassungGehirn-Computer-Schnittstellen beflügeln die Hoffnung auf übermenschliche Kräfte: ... more ZusammenfassungGehirn-Computer-Schnittstellen beflügeln die Hoffnung auf übermenschliche Kräfte: Sie versetzen Nutzer in die Lage, Prothesen und sonstige Geräte allein mit ihren Gedanken zu steuern. Je weiter die Entwicklung der neuen Technologie voranschreitet und in marktfähige Produkte mündet, desto sichtbarer rücken auch potenzielle Sicherheitsrisiken in den Fokus. Denn Angriffe auf Gehirn-Computer-Schnittstellen können neurologische Daten erspähen oder Gehirnaktivitäten manipulieren und dadurch verheerende Schäden verursachen. Der Beitrag geht der Frage auf den Grund, wie die Rechtsordnung den Risiken eines Angriffs auf Gehirn-Computer-Schnittstellen bislang begegnet – und wie sie ihnen künftig begegnen sollte.
Seit LAWRENCE B. SOLUMs Aufsatz <em>Legal Personhood for Artificial Intelligences</em>... more Seit LAWRENCE B. SOLUMs Aufsatz <em>Legal Personhood for Artificial Intelligences</em> von 1992 wird rege diskutiert, ob bzw. ab wann digitale Agenten Rechtspersönlichkeit erhalten sollen. Die entscheidende Frage ist, wann digitale Agenten zur Teilnahme am Rechtsverkehr fähig sind. In diesem Beitrag soll untersucht werden, ob Agenten, die auf der Technologie der Künstlichen Neuronalen Netzen basieren, "autonom genug" sind, um als Rechtsperson handeln zu können.
Artificial Intelligence ("AI") is already being employed to make critical legal decisions in many... more Artificial Intelligence ("AI") is already being employed to make critical legal decisions in many countries all over the world. The use of AI in decision-making is a widely debated issue due to allegations of bias, opacity, and lack of accountability. For many, algorithmic decision-making seems obscure, inscrutable, or virtually dystopic. Like in Kafka's The Trial, the decision-makers are anonymous and cannot be challenged in a discursive manner. This article addresses the question of how AI technology can be used for legal decisionmaking and decision-support without appearing Kafkaesque. First, two types of machine learning algorithms are outlined: both Decision Trees and Artificial Neural Networks are commonly used in decision-making software. The real-world use of those technologies is shown on a few examples. Three types of use-cases are identified, depending on how directly humans are influenced by the decision. To establish criteria for evaluating the use of AI in decision-making, machine ethics, the theory of procedural justice, the rule of law, and the principles of due process are consulted. Subsequently, transparency, fairness, accountability, the right to be heard and the right to notice, as well as dignity and respect are discussed. Furthermore, possible safeguards and potential solutions to tackle existing problems are presented. In conclusion, AI rendering decisions on humans does not have to be Kafkaesque. Many solutions and approaches offer possibilities to not only ameliorate the downsides of current AI technologies, but to enrich and enhance the legal system.
USF Intellectual Property and Technology Law Journal, 2020
Artificial Intelligence ("AI") is already being employed to make critical legal decisions in many... more Artificial Intelligence ("AI") is already being employed to make critical legal decisions in many countries all over the world. The use of AI in decision-making is a widely debated issue due to allegations of bias, opacity, and lack of accountability. For many, algorithmic decision-making seems obscure, inscrutable, or virtually dystopic. Like in Kafka's The Trial, the decision-makers are anonymous and cannot be challenged in a discursive manner. This article addresses the question of how AI technology can be used for legal decision-making and decision-support without appearing Kafkaesque. First, two types of machine learning algorithms are outlined: both Decision Trees and Artificial Neural Networks are commonly used in decision-making software. The real-world use of those technologies is shown on a few examples. Three types of use-cases are identified, depending on how directly humans are influenced by the decision. To establish criteria for evaluating the use of AI in decision-making, machine ethics, the theory of procedural justice, the rule of law, and the principles of due process are consulted. Subsequently, transparency, fairness, accountability, the right to be heard and the right to notice, as well as dignity and respect are discussed. Furthermore, possible safeguards and potential solutions to tackle existing problems are presented. In conclusion, AI rendering decisions on humans does not have to be Kafkaesque. Many solutions and approaches offer possibilities to not only ameliorate the downsides of current AI technologies, but to enrich and enhance the legal system.
Verfassungsblog, 2020
On 28 August 2020, Neuralink gave a much anticipated update on their progress to connect humans a... more On 28 August 2020, Neuralink gave a much anticipated update on their progress to connect humans and computers. The company – founded amongst others by Elon Musk – is working on “connect[ing] humans and computers”. The publicity and sensationalism surrounding Neuralink fuels discussions on “brain-reading ‘threads’” that will “stream music straight into your brain” and ultimately merge “your brain with A.I.”. In the near future, the activities within our brain will be recorded, analysed, and altered, shaking our conception of inaccessible mental processes. A multitude of legal issues will arise, in particular to what extent fundamental and human rights protect mental processes and neurological data collected by (therapeutic or enhancing) brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) from being accessed by states without the individual’s consent. Existing rights such as freedom of thought, freedom from self-incrimination, and the right to privacy may be interpreted to encompass scenarios of brains merged with computers. To date, however, there remains a significant gap as neurological data does not enjoy absolute protection from any interference within the existing European human and fundamental rights frameworks. This gap could be remedied by introducing new mental rights.
Cognitio, 2018
Seit Lawrence B. Solums Aufsatz "Legal Personhood for Artificial Intelligences" von 1992 wird reg... more Seit Lawrence B. Solums Aufsatz "Legal Personhood for Artificial Intelligences" von 1992 wird rege diskutiert, ob bzw. ab wann digitale Agenten Rechtspersönlichkeit erhalten sollen. Die entscheidende Frage ist, wann digitale Agenten zur Teilnahme am Rechtsverkehr fähig sind. In diesem Beitrag soll untersucht werden, ob Agenten, die auf der Technologie der Künstlichen Neuronalen Netzen basieren, „autonom genug“ sind, um als Rechtsperson handeln zu können.
Prometheus
This is a condensation of the same authors' Research Handbook on the Law of Artificial Intelligen... more This is a condensation of the same authors' Research Handbook on the Law of Artificial Intelligence (2018), which presents legal issues arising from the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) to a broad audience. Barfield and Pagallo wrote this abridged version to offer an easily accessible introduction to law and AI for law students, legal practitioners and non-legal experts. AI is pervading business as well as our social and private lives-up to the point where we interact with some form of AI daily. These systems are becoming increasingly smart, and we must deal with the consequences of their incremental autonomy. Our legal systems are not yet equipped to handle these novel challenges and are in need of new and innovative regulatory strategies. The authors start with a brief account of the fundamental concepts of AI to introduce lawyers to the subject matter. Subsequently, they explain relevant legal notions and legal situations in a comprehensible manner for both law students and non-lawyers. They present a concise overview of human rights frameworks and constitutional law, although their emphasis is on business-related law (data protection, intellectual property, antitrust and business law). In doing so, they analyse EU and US law comparatively, which provides valuable insights for law students into other legal systems as well as a felicitous approach to discussion of different regulatory strategies.
International Cybersecurity Law Review, 2022
ZusammenfassungGehirn-Computer-Schnittstellen beflügeln die Hoffnung auf übermenschliche Kräfte: ... more ZusammenfassungGehirn-Computer-Schnittstellen beflügeln die Hoffnung auf übermenschliche Kräfte: Sie versetzen Nutzer in die Lage, Prothesen und sonstige Geräte allein mit ihren Gedanken zu steuern. Je weiter die Entwicklung der neuen Technologie voranschreitet und in marktfähige Produkte mündet, desto sichtbarer rücken auch potenzielle Sicherheitsrisiken in den Fokus. Denn Angriffe auf Gehirn-Computer-Schnittstellen können neurologische Daten erspähen oder Gehirnaktivitäten manipulieren und dadurch verheerende Schäden verursachen. Der Beitrag geht der Frage auf den Grund, wie die Rechtsordnung den Risiken eines Angriffs auf Gehirn-Computer-Schnittstellen bislang begegnet – und wie sie ihnen künftig begegnen sollte.
Seit LAWRENCE B. SOLUMs Aufsatz <em>Legal Personhood for Artificial Intelligences</em>... more Seit LAWRENCE B. SOLUMs Aufsatz <em>Legal Personhood for Artificial Intelligences</em> von 1992 wird rege diskutiert, ob bzw. ab wann digitale Agenten Rechtspersönlichkeit erhalten sollen. Die entscheidende Frage ist, wann digitale Agenten zur Teilnahme am Rechtsverkehr fähig sind. In diesem Beitrag soll untersucht werden, ob Agenten, die auf der Technologie der Künstlichen Neuronalen Netzen basieren, "autonom genug" sind, um als Rechtsperson handeln zu können.
Artificial Intelligence ("AI") is already being employed to make critical legal decisions in many... more Artificial Intelligence ("AI") is already being employed to make critical legal decisions in many countries all over the world. The use of AI in decision-making is a widely debated issue due to allegations of bias, opacity, and lack of accountability. For many, algorithmic decision-making seems obscure, inscrutable, or virtually dystopic. Like in Kafka's The Trial, the decision-makers are anonymous and cannot be challenged in a discursive manner. This article addresses the question of how AI technology can be used for legal decisionmaking and decision-support without appearing Kafkaesque. First, two types of machine learning algorithms are outlined: both Decision Trees and Artificial Neural Networks are commonly used in decision-making software. The real-world use of those technologies is shown on a few examples. Three types of use-cases are identified, depending on how directly humans are influenced by the decision. To establish criteria for evaluating the use of AI in decision-making, machine ethics, the theory of procedural justice, the rule of law, and the principles of due process are consulted. Subsequently, transparency, fairness, accountability, the right to be heard and the right to notice, as well as dignity and respect are discussed. Furthermore, possible safeguards and potential solutions to tackle existing problems are presented. In conclusion, AI rendering decisions on humans does not have to be Kafkaesque. Many solutions and approaches offer possibilities to not only ameliorate the downsides of current AI technologies, but to enrich and enhance the legal system.
USF Intellectual Property and Technology Law Journal, 2020
Artificial Intelligence ("AI") is already being employed to make critical legal decisions in many... more Artificial Intelligence ("AI") is already being employed to make critical legal decisions in many countries all over the world. The use of AI in decision-making is a widely debated issue due to allegations of bias, opacity, and lack of accountability. For many, algorithmic decision-making seems obscure, inscrutable, or virtually dystopic. Like in Kafka's The Trial, the decision-makers are anonymous and cannot be challenged in a discursive manner. This article addresses the question of how AI technology can be used for legal decision-making and decision-support without appearing Kafkaesque. First, two types of machine learning algorithms are outlined: both Decision Trees and Artificial Neural Networks are commonly used in decision-making software. The real-world use of those technologies is shown on a few examples. Three types of use-cases are identified, depending on how directly humans are influenced by the decision. To establish criteria for evaluating the use of AI in decision-making, machine ethics, the theory of procedural justice, the rule of law, and the principles of due process are consulted. Subsequently, transparency, fairness, accountability, the right to be heard and the right to notice, as well as dignity and respect are discussed. Furthermore, possible safeguards and potential solutions to tackle existing problems are presented. In conclusion, AI rendering decisions on humans does not have to be Kafkaesque. Many solutions and approaches offer possibilities to not only ameliorate the downsides of current AI technologies, but to enrich and enhance the legal system.
Verfassungsblog, 2020
On 28 August 2020, Neuralink gave a much anticipated update on their progress to connect humans a... more On 28 August 2020, Neuralink gave a much anticipated update on their progress to connect humans and computers. The company – founded amongst others by Elon Musk – is working on “connect[ing] humans and computers”. The publicity and sensationalism surrounding Neuralink fuels discussions on “brain-reading ‘threads’” that will “stream music straight into your brain” and ultimately merge “your brain with A.I.”. In the near future, the activities within our brain will be recorded, analysed, and altered, shaking our conception of inaccessible mental processes. A multitude of legal issues will arise, in particular to what extent fundamental and human rights protect mental processes and neurological data collected by (therapeutic or enhancing) brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) from being accessed by states without the individual’s consent. Existing rights such as freedom of thought, freedom from self-incrimination, and the right to privacy may be interpreted to encompass scenarios of brains merged with computers. To date, however, there remains a significant gap as neurological data does not enjoy absolute protection from any interference within the existing European human and fundamental rights frameworks. This gap could be remedied by introducing new mental rights.
Cognitio, 2018
Seit Lawrence B. Solums Aufsatz "Legal Personhood for Artificial Intelligences" von 1992 wird reg... more Seit Lawrence B. Solums Aufsatz "Legal Personhood for Artificial Intelligences" von 1992 wird rege diskutiert, ob bzw. ab wann digitale Agenten Rechtspersönlichkeit erhalten sollen. Die entscheidende Frage ist, wann digitale Agenten zur Teilnahme am Rechtsverkehr fähig sind. In diesem Beitrag soll untersucht werden, ob Agenten, die auf der Technologie der Künstlichen Neuronalen Netzen basieren, „autonom genug“ sind, um als Rechtsperson handeln zu können.