Datasets:

tvergho

/

DebateCards-phase2

like 0

bc1728098bb71a2dc874118bf39d07b95abc85b2c3f7efa2ba2a6ba71d476184

Democracy caps all existential risk.

Eaton ’20 [George; 9/17/20; Senior Online Editor @ New Statesman; Citing Noam Chomsky; Laureate Professor in the Department of Linguistics @ University of Arizona, Professor Emeritus @ MIT, PhD in Linguistics @ UPenn; “Noam Chomsky: The world is at the most dangerous moment in human history”; https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2020/09/noam-chomsky-the-world-is-at-the-most-dangerous-moment-in-human-history]

climate crisis , nuclear war and authoritarianism end of human life is what we’re facing Doomsday Clock moved to seconds to midnight This shift reflected threat of nuclear war threat of environmental catastrophe and deterioration of democracy the hope for dealing with existential crises which threaten extinction is democracy with engaged informed citizens developing programmes Trump as figurehead of a new “ reactionary international Bolsonaro’s Brazil Sisi’s Egypt Modi destroying Indian secular democracy Orbán in Hungary

the world is at the most dangerous moment in human history owing to the climate crisis , the threat of nuclear war and rising authoritarianism perils exceed There’s been nothing like it in human history the end of organised human life on Earth is what we’re facing We’re at an astonishing confluence of very severe crises The extent of them was illustrated by the last setting of the Doomsday Clock they moved to seconds to midnight , which means termination This shift reflected “the growing threat of nuclear war , The growing threat of environmental catastrophe and the sharp deterioration of democracy which sounds as if it doesn’t belong but it does the only hope for dealing with the two existential crises which do threaten extinction is to deal with them through a vibrant democracy with engaged informed citizens participating in developing programmes to deal with these crises Trump moved to end, the arms control regime He’s greatly increased development of new, dangerous, more threatening weapons, Chomsky described Trump as the figurehead of a new “ reactionary international ” the leading candidate is Bolsonaro’s Brazil Sisi’s Egypt is the worst dictatorship that Egypt has ever had Modi is destroying Indian secular democracy severely repressing the Muslim population vastly extended the terrible Indian occupation of Kashmir In Europe, the leading candidate is Orbán in Hungary

climate crisis nuclear war authoritarianism the end of organised human life on Earth is what we’re facing Doomsday Clock termination nuclear war , sharp deterioration of democracy does the only hope for dealing with the two existential crises extinction engaged informed citizens developing programmes reactionary international ” destroying Indian secular democracy

['Noam Chomsky has warned that the world is at the most dangerous moment in human history owing to the climate crisis, the threat of nuclear war and rising authoritarianism. In an exclusive interview with the New Statesman, the 91-year-old US linguist and activist said that the current perils exceed those of the 1930s.', '“There’s been nothing like it in human history,” Chomsky said. “I’m old enough to remember, very vividly, the threat that Nazism could take over much of Eurasia, that was not an idle concern. US military planners did anticipate that the war would end with a US-dominated region and a German-dominated region… But even that, horrible enough, was not like the end of organised human life on Earth, which is what we’re facing.”', 'Chomsky was interviewed in advance of the first summit of the Progressive International (18-20 September), a new organisation founded by Bernie Sanders, the former US presidential candidate, and Yanis Varoufakis, the former Greek finance minister, to counter right-wing authoritarianism. In an echo of the movement’s slogan “internationalism or extinction”, Chomsky warned: “We’re at an astonishing confluence of very severe crises. The extent of them was illustrated by the last setting of the famous Doomsday Clock. It’s been set every year since the atom bombing, the minute hand has moved forward and back. But last January, they abandoned minutes and moved to seconds to midnight, which means termination. And that was before the scale of the pandemic.”', 'This shift, Chomsky said, reflected “the growing threat of nuclear war, which is probably more severe than it was during the Cold War. The growing threat of environmental catastrophe, and the third thing that they’ve been picking up for the last few years is the sharp deterioration of democracy, which sounds at first as if it doesn’t belong but it actually does, because the only hope for dealing with the two existential crises, which do threaten extinction, is to deal with them through a vibrant democracy with engaged, informed citizens who are participating in developing programmes to deal with these crises.”', 'Chomsky added that “[Donald] Trump has accomplished something quite impressive: he’s succeeded in increasing the threat of each of the three dangers. On nuclear weapons, he’s moved to continue, and essentially bring to an end, the dismantling of the arms control regime, which has offered some protection against terminal disaster. He’s greatly increased the development of new, dangerous, more threatening weapons, which means others do so too, which is increasing the threat to all of us.', '“On environmental catastrophe, he’s escalated his effort to maximise the use of fossil fuels and to terminate the regulations that somewhat mitigate the effect of the coming disaster if we proceed on our present course.”', '“On the deterioration of democracy, it’s become a joke. The executive branch of [the US] government has been completely purged of any dissident voice. Now it’s left with a group of sycophants.”', 'Chomsky described Trump as the figurehead of a new “reactionary international” consisting of Brazil, India, the UK, Egypt, Israel and Hungary. “In the western hemisphere the leading candidate is [Jair] Bolsonaro’s Brazil, kind of a small-time clone of President Trump. In the Middle East it will be based on the family dictatorships, the most reactionary states in the world. [Abdel al-]Sisi’s Egypt is the worst dictatorship that Egypt has ever had. Israel has moved so far to the right that you need a telescope to see it, it’s about the only country in the world where young people are even more reactionary than adults.”', 'He added: “[Narendra] Modi is destroying Indian secular democracy, severely repressing the Muslim population, he’s just vastly extended the terrible Indian occupation of Kashmir. In Europe, the leading candidate is [Viktor] Orbán in Hungary, who is creating a proto-fascist state. There are other figures, like [Matteo] Salvini in Italy, who gets his kicks out of watching refugees drown in the Mediterranean.”']

[(0, 9)]

da5f16fcb0d60101769eef2e676d89d5f14e36eaa6d2de3c94a9caa01349d630

Microbial biodiversity solves global biodiversity and extinction.

Sharma ’22 [Sunanda, Chair of Applied and Molecular Microbiology @ Technische Universität Berlin, and Vera Meyer, Microbio @ Technische Universität Berlin; “The colors of life: an interdisciplinary artist-in-residence project to research fungal pigments as a gateway to empathy and understanding of microbial life” Fungal Biol Biotechnol. 2022; 9: 1. Published online 2022 Jan 10. doi: 10.1186/s40694-021-00130-7]

microbial diversity is the biodiversity of Earth. A great deal of life on our planet may in fact be microbial microorganisms are essential to agriculture biogeochemical cycles evolution of higher Microbial diversity is fundamental to maintenance of global resources and human survival biotechnological applications such as biopharmaceuticals and bioremediation

limited discovery of microbial diversity is a significant challenge to our understanding of the biodiversity of Earth. A great deal of life on our planet may in fact be microbial , little to nothing about the trends regarding its diversity and rate of change The mismatch of physical scale between microorganisms and humans has been proposed as the reason for a “size bias” against microbial life, resulting in their microorganisms are essential to agriculture biogeochemical cycles and the evolution of higher life Microbial diversity is fundamental to not only the maintenance of global resources and , in turn, human survival but microorganisms are now being increasingly pursued for their potential in biotechnological applications such as the production of biopharmaceuticals and use in bioremediation Given that human it is critical that microbes are reconsidered if survival are to be maintained. public interest in insect pollinators has been sought by presenting data on their widespread positive effect on globally important crops

limited discovery microbial diversity biodiversity of Earth. A great deal of life on our planet may in fact be microbial , little to nothing about the trends regarding its diversity and rate of change microorganisms are essential to agriculture biogeochemical human survival biotechnological applications biopharmaceuticals bioremediation it is critical that microbes are reconsidered if survival are to be maintained.

['The limited discovery and quantification of microbial diversity is a significant challenge to our understanding of the biodiversity of Earth. A great deal of life on our planet may in fact be microbial, yet we are estimated to know less than 1% of existing microbial species [2] and little to nothing about the trends regarding its diversity and rate of change [3]. Even the microbial species we know of, including many bacteria, fungi, archaea, and protists, are often understudied. This may be in part due to the fact that they are individually difficult or impossible to discern with the naked eye, limiting observation and interaction by humans. The mismatch of physical scale between microorganisms and humans has been proposed as the reason for a “size bias” against microbial life, resulting in their exclusion from the ethical frameworks utilized in laboratory research [4, 5]. In addition, microorganisms lack key features that humans have been shown to have strong affective and empathetic responses to, such as visible neotenic characteristics, similarity to human appearance, the possibility of communication, and aesthetic beauty [6]. Furthermore, research on human empathy for other organisms indicates that there is an inverse relationship between empathy inspired by the species and evolutionary divergence time, suggesting that achieving human empathy for microorganisms is a challenging endeavor [7]. Yet, it is well accepted that microorganisms are essential to agriculture [8], major biogeochemical cycles [9, 10], and the evolution of higher life forms [11, 12]. In addition, they are ubiquitous in and on the human body [13] and built environment [14, 15], so may be deserving of unique ethical consideration. Microbial diversity is fundamental to not only the maintenance of global resources and, in turn, human survival [16, 17], but microorganisms are now being increasingly pursued for their potential in biotechnological applications such as the production of biopharmaceuticals [18], and use in bioremediation [19, 20]. Given that human preference directly affects the success of preservation and conservation efforts [21], it is critical that microbes are reconsidered in an empathetic light if their survival and diversity are to be maintained. Approaches for increasing human empathy for non-human organisms have been explored most widely in the field of conservation biology and can be grouped into five themes: promoting anthropomorphism, demonstrating utility, eliciting emotion (such as sympathy, protectiveness, or curiosity), promoting practical engagement, and attachment to nature, and highlighting aesthetic beauty. The first approach focuses on finding or creating similarities between a target species and humans to develop empathy, such as by adding human-like faces onto representations of animals; it has more recently been refined in an attempt to reduce anthropocentric bias [22]. The second approach focuses on examining and communicating the usefulness of a target species to human survival or daily life. For instance, public interest in insect pollinators has been sought by presenting data on their widespread positive effect on globally important crops as well as quantifying their service contribution to market output [23]. The third approach has similarly been used to call for support for pollinators such as honeybees (Apis mellifera) by describing their plight and the potential role of humans as protectors [24]. The fourth approach has been explored through citizen science efforts to engage the public in the research and conservation of various organisms such as native North American songbirds [25], butterflies [26], and bumblebees [27]. Finally, highlighting aesthetic beauty has been used effectively to promote interest in some organisms, such as butterflies [28].']

[(0, 10)]

565c5476fa64a1a87782da6ebd1a482421ff2d29d7a49079a88f51e9b4a59d0c

Platforms’ anticompetitive practices shut rivals out of the market.

First & Fox ’20 [Harry; Professor of Trade Regulation @ NYU; and Eleanor; Professor of Law @ NYU; “We Need Rules to Rein in Big Tech”; NYU Law and Economic Research Paper Series, Working Paper No. 20-46; AS]

practices of GAFA structural factors make strategies possible network effects are great barriers to entry high users necessary to enter market may tip to one dominant critical element is data platforms use data for exclusions Platforms use data to “spy” on platform users appropriate for themselves the best ideas to preempt features platforms disable rivals who are getting “ too good as Facebook did to Vine Dominant platforms are gatekeepers compete with businesses they host on their platforms demote rivals out of business

practices of the GAFA have been well documented structural factors make the strategies possible network effects are so great that barriers to entry are high even the most promising prospective entrants have trouble finding users necessary to enter the market may tip to one dominant firm critical element of this is data platforms use the data for exploitations and exclusions platforms take much more data than they need The platforms take and combine data from third party sources Platforms have been found to use their data troves to “spy” on platform users appropriate for themselves the best ideas of their rivals to preempt rivals’ innovative features platforms have used data troves to learn which startups are likely to become challengers and to buy or squash these rivals platforms disable rivals who are getting “ too good as Facebook did to Vine Dominant platforms are gatekeepers they compete with businesses they host on their platforms they prefer and prioritize the platforms’ own offerings to rivals, even when rivals’ are superior They demote rivals and drive some out of business They have designed their systems to resist operability with competitive alternatives, and have frustrated users’ portability of their own data platforms have used various tying, bundling, and exclusivity practices to leverage their product

GAFA structural factors network effects entry users dominant firm data exploitations exclusions third party sources best ideas rivals preempt rivals’ innovative features challengers too good Vine gatekeepers superior resist operability leverage

['II. RECURRENT ANTICOMPETITIVE AND UNFAIR BEHAVIOR OF THE GAFA', 'Various acts, practices and strategies of the GAFA have now been well documented. Certain structural factors make the strategies possible, and we start with them.', 'The Big Tech platforms are in network industries. The network effects are so great (everyone wants their friends on the same platform, suppliers want their buyers on the same platform, etc.) that barriers to entry are very high, and even the most promising prospective entrants have trouble finding the critical mass of users necessary to enter. There are periods of competition for the market; thereafter the market may tip to one dominant firm. A critical element of this new platform economy is data. The platforms vacuum up huge amounts of data from users of the platforms, and use the data not only for efficiencies but also for exploitations and exclusions.', 'Here are some of the alleged practices. The platforms take much more data than they need to service the platform’s users. Often, they take data without asking. In view of recent regulations, they may now ask users for consent, but they deny the use of the platform without consent. The platforms take and combine data from third party sources, as Facebook has done with the “likes” function on non-Facebook platforms. With the extensive data they collect, the platforms learn detailed private facts about their users, including what the users want to buy, and the platforms are able to sell highly curated space to advertisers, for which the advertisers pay large sums of money. Platforms have been found to use their data troves to “spy” on platform users, and to appropriate for themselves the best ideas of their rivals; for example, to preempt rivals’ innovative features. Moreover, the platforms have used their data troves to learn which startups are likely to become significant challengers, and to buy or squash these young emerging rivals. In addition, platforms disable rivals who are getting “too good,” as Facebook did to Vine when it cut Vine users off from the usual function of sending short videos to their friends. When in dispute with their users, platforms have been found to hide the “send” or “order” button that the user depends on to do business. Dominant platforms are often gatekeepers; they compete with the businesses that they host on their platforms. Not atypically they prefer and prioritize the platforms’ own offerings to those of the rivals, even when the rivals’ offerings are superior. They demote rivals and drive some out of business by demotions. They have sometimes designed their systems to resist operability with competitive alternatives, and have frustrated users’ portability of their own data. In addition, the platforms have used various tying, bundling, and exclusivity practices to leverage and entrench their own product, as Google Search has done with Apple and Android operating systems; and they have preempted markets for themselves, as Google has done as ad broker for all advertising placed on through Google, and Apple has done through the Apple Play Store as the exclusive route to reach iPhone users.']

[(0, 15)]

86dec4af89207c960a9ec587a18eb0515a1c5c35bb72228c27e75e59f93fe656

Case-by-case adjudication discourages startup entry.

Chopra & Khan ’20 [Rohit; Commissioner @ Federal Trade Commission; and Lina; Chairperson @ Federal Trade Commission, JD @ Yale Law School; “The Case for “Unfair Methods of Competition” Rulemaking,” The University of Chicago Law Review 87(2), p. 357-380]

reliance on case-by-case adjudication leaves market participants watching from the sidelines lacking opportunity to contribute perspective Nascent firms and startups are left o ambiguity of laws administrative burdens of enforcing them, and exclusivity of the current process tend to advantage incumbents and suppress entry new entrants are likely to eschew practice, since the threat of litigation could prove fatal Incumbents have higher tolerance for litigation and deeper pockets to fund it

reliance on case-by-case adjudication leaves broad swaths of market participants watching from the sidelines , lacking an opportunity to contribute their perspective , their analysis, or their expertise Nascent firms and startups are especially likely to be left o ut given that they do not comprise a significant portion of the parties represented in litigated matters The ambiguity of the laws , the administrative and resource burdens of enforcing them, and the exclusivity of the current process tend to advantage incumbents and suppress market entry new entrants are likely to eschew the practice, since the threat of litigation could prove fatal at an early stage. Incumbents be more likely to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of engaging in a potentially unlawful practice, since they are likely to have higher tolerance for protracted litigation and deeper pockets to fund it .

case-by-case adjudication watching from the sidelines Nascent firms and startups ambiguity administrative resource burdens exclusivity advantage incumbents suppress entry new entrants the threat of litigation could prove fatal protracted litigation deeper pockets

['Lastly, the current approach deprives both the public and market participants of any real opportunity to participate in the creation of substantive antitrust rules.23 The exclusive reliance on case-by-case adjudication leaves broad swaths of market participants watching from the sidelines, lacking an opportunity to contribute their perspective, their analysis, or their expertise, except through one-off amicus briefs.24 Nascent firms and startups are especially likely to be left out—despite the vital role they play in the competition ecosystem—given that they do not comprise a significant portion of the parties represented in litigated matters, and they usually lack the resources to engage in amicus activity. Furthermore future entrants, whose interests should be carefully considered in all aspects of competition law and policy, have no voice.', 'Firms, entrepreneurs, workers, and consumers across our economy vary wildly in their experiences and perspectives on market conduct. Enforcement and regulation of business conduct can more successfully promote competition when it incorporates more voices and evidence from across the marketplace. The ambiguity of the laws, the administrative and resource burdens of enforcing them, and the exclusivity of the current process tend to advantage incumbents and suppress market entry. For example, when courts disagree with one another on the legality of particular conduct, new entrants are likely to eschew the practice, since the threat of litigation could prove fatal at an early stage. Incumbents, by contrast, will be more likely to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of engaging in a potentially unlawful practice, since they are likely to have higher tolerance for protracted litigation and deeper pockets to fund it. Continued ambiguity and complexity also create business opportunities for lawyers, economists, and lobbyists, who effectively profit from the lack of clarity']

[(0, 17)]

9d90e1c8f69939651414f3665bb078882e6d3652d1e2cbc3697bc7987b892550

Lina Khan is qualified.

Nylen ’21 [Leah; 9/29/21; Technology Reporter @ Politico; “Lina Khan’s big tech crackdown is drawing blowback. It may succeed anyway”; https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/29/lina-khan-war-monopolies-514581; AS]

complaints about Khan revolve around her age a coded attack on her as Asian American woman she has spent years as an influential figure with a Yale Law article that spawned rethinking of Amazon She served as a Judiciary Committee aide during the probe she has led a legal movement she is facing backlash from establishment accustomed to getting its way

complaints about Khan revolve around her age a coded attack on her as a young Asian American woman she has spent years as an influential figure in the tech antitrust world starting with a Yale Law Journal article she wrote as a student that spawned a broader rethinking of how regulators should approach dominant tech companies like Amazon She later served as a House Judiciary Committee aide during the panel’s 16-month antitrust probe of Amazon , Apple , Google and Facebook she has led a legal movement she is facing a backlash from a business establishment that became accustomed to getting its way at the agency The antitrust bar that represents the defense side has always felt an entitlement to the chair of the FTC It’s great to see the president pick someone outside Big Law

Khan age coded attack young Asian American woman years influential figure Yale Law Journal article broader rethinking Amazon House Judiciary Committee aide Amazon Apple Google Facebook legal movement backlash business establishment accustomed entitlement outside Big Law

['Many complaints about Khan from both inside and outside the building revolve around her age — she’s the youngest chair in the agency’s history — and the fact that she has never practiced law. Her supporters see that as a coded attack on her as a young Asian American woman (Khan is of Pakistani descent).', 'In fact, she has spent years as an influential figure in the tech antitrust world, starting with a\xa0Yale Law Journal article\xa0that she wrote as a student in 2017 that spawned a broader rethinking of how regulators should approach dominant tech companies like Amazon.', 'She later served as a House Judiciary Committee aide during the panel’s 16-month antitrust probe of Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook. Together with her fellow Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu — now a member of Biden’s National Economic Council — she has led a legal movement that critics label “hipster antitrust,” which argues that the government should challenge corporate power to prevent any company from exerting too much economic or political control.', 'Khan’s allies say she is facing a backlash from a business establishment that became accustomed to getting its way at the agency.', '“The antitrust bar that represents the defense side has always felt an entitlement to the chair of the FTC, whether it’s a Democrat or Republican,” said Ed Mierzwinski, who oversees the nonprofit advocacy group U.S. PIRG’s federal consumer program and has worked with the FTC since the 1980s. “It’s great to see the president pick someone outside Big Law.”']

[(0, 9)]

f1f679b40ea4fa2bd9cbb8a5cfe4ea7008e4d8933c88d42ed4ea9d27dda55ab5

Challenges to rulemaking would be swiftly struck down.

Kades & Morton ’21 [Michael; Washington Center for Equitable Growth; and Fiona; Yale University; “Interoperability as a Competition Remedy for Digital Networks”; Washington Center for Equitable Growth Working Paper Series; AS]

To challenge a rule could occur in two situations in either situation a court would uphold the rule Notice and Comment is well established and gives flexibility Commission could hold workshops court can vacate if it is “ arbitrary These are unlikely valid courts do not second guess agency’s determination there is a rich discussion on harms in digital markets

To challenge a n agency rule the plaintiff must allege it has suffered injury that is particularized, and imminent When the rule has been applied in a specific case it will likely have been tailored to the specific circumstances. The review would focus on the actual order issued in the case, which would depend on the record in the specific case Nevertheless we consider whether the rule would be upheld could occur in two situations First , if a court found standing. Second, in a particular litigation party might challenge the order under the APA in either situation a court would uphold the rule validity of the proposed rule would depend on whether it satisfies the APA Notice and Comment rulemaking is well established under the APA and gives the Commission flexibility in developing a rule the Commission would need to issue a Notice of Proposed Rule Making, take comments, and issue a final rule that includes a statement of the rule’s purpose and the basis for the rule The Commission could hold workshops if it felt that would be helpful court can vacate the rule if it is “ arbitrary and capricious is in excess of statutory jurisdiction or “without observance of procedure These are unlikely to be valid courts do not second guess the agency’s determination the rule should not be found to be arbitrary and capricious there is already a rich academic and policy discussion on the types of anticompetitive harms that occur in digital markets

agency rule suffered injury specific case tailored actual order issued Nevertheless upheld APA in either situation a court would uphold the rule Notice and Comment APA flexibility final rule workshops arbitrary and capricious statutory jurisdiction unlikely to be valid do not second guess should not be found rich academic policy discussion anticompetitive harms digital markets

['C. Rule-Making Process', 'It is unlikely that the rule could be challenged until it was applied in a specific case because no one would have standing. To challenge an agency rule, the plaintiff must allege it has suffered injury in fact that is “(a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.”96 Until the Commission determines a company has violated the Federal Trade Commission Act, it has not suffered any harm. Nor is a company likely to argue that it is in imminent danger because its current behavior violates the law.', 'When the rule has been applied in a specific case, it will likely have been tailored to the specific circumstances. The review would focus on the actual order issued in the case, which would depend on the record in the specific case. Nevertheless, we consider whether the rule would be upheld on its own, which could occur in two situations. First, if a court found standing. Second, in a particular litigation, a party might challenge the default order under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and argue that because the default order is inappropriate, the specific remedy must be vacated. In our view, in either situation a court would likely uphold the rule.', 'The validity of the proposed rule would depend on whether it satisfies the requirements of the APA. Notice and Comment rulemaking is well established under the APA and gives the Commission flexibility in developing a rule. At a minimum, the Commission would need to issue a Notice of Proposed Rule Making, take comments, and issue a final rule that includes a statement of the rule’s purpose and the basis for the rule.97 The Commission could hold workshops or even a hearing if it felt that would be helpful.', 'A court can vacate the rule if it is “arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law,”98 “is in excess of statutory jurisdiction, or authority, or limitation, or short of statutory rights”99 or “without observance of procedure required by law.”100 These concerns are unlikely to be valid in our setting. Although there is dispute as to how stringent judicial review under the APA is, courts do not second guess the agency’s determination. As long as the FTC’s rule reflects the evidence in the record, employs acceptable reasoning, addresses concerns, and considers alternatives, the rule should not be found to be arbitrary and capricious. As the discussion above illustrates, there is already a rich academic and policy discussion on the types of anticompetitive harms that can occur in digital markets and how to address them.101']

[(0, 18)]

40cdb3b6d819d701a7a17b6701cb3e7b19ed911d66bddae8d80ca5b0915a6704

Dominant platforms are a threat to democracy.

Simons & Ghosh ’20 [Josh; Graduate Fellow in the Edmond J. Safra Centre for Ethics and Affiliate in Berkman Klein Centre for Internet at Society @ Harvard University; and Dipayan; PhD in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science @ Cornell University, Co-Director of the Digital Platforms & Democracy Project in Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy @ Harvard Kennedy School, Faculty @ Harvard Law School; “Utilities for democracy: Why and how the algorithmic infrastructure of Facebook and Google must be regulated,” Brookings Institution; AS]

found hers engineered democracy to appli public control Democracy must be forged through institutions that represent competing interests challenge for democracies is control over private power Facebook and Google threaten democracy they have unilateral control over algorithms that structure debate shaping news communicate used data to build machine learning control concentrates economic social and political power, shaping the public sphere

democracy is not safe if the people tolerate private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself found ing fat hers engineered democracy to appli ed principle of public control to forge a constitutional system of public representation Democracy must be forged through public institutions that represent competing interests and articulate deep disagreements challenge for democracies is to establish institutions that assert public control over private power Facebook and Google have become such entities These two companies threaten democracy because they have unilateral control over algorithms that structure public debate and access to information shaping how we consume news how we communicate and how we debate fundamental questions Facebook and Google used their vast troves of data to build sophisticated machine learning Their control concentrates economic power but also social and political power, shaping the digital public sphere

democracy private power democratic state found hers public control public institutions competing interests democracies public control private power threaten democracy structure public debate information consume news communicate fundamental questions data machine learning economic power social political digital public sphere

['INTRODUCTION', 'The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. — Franklin Delano Roosevelt2', 'America’s founding fathers engineered its democracy to avoid the factionalism they felt had destroyed other democratic experiments in the past. They applied the principle of public control that underpinned ancient institutions of direct selfgovernment to forge a constitutional system of public representation.3 James Madison wrote: “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause; because his interest would certainly bias his judgement, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men, are unfit to be both judges and parties, at the same time… justice ought to hold the balance between them.”4', 'Democracy is a ceaseless project that requires diverse citizens to find unity in order to govern themselves effectively. Madison and his contemporaries understood that unity does not simply emerge from difference, it must be forged through public institutions that represent competing interests and articulate deep disagreements. In matters of fundamental public concern, the central challenge for modern democracies is to establish and maintain institutions that assert public control over private power, building shared ends and common purpose in polities like today’s United States, the diversity of which would have dazzled the founders. Madison saw that for those institutions to endure, no entity, whether private corporations or social groups, could be permitted to acquire unfettered power to shape the public sphere or stifle the possibilities of collective action.', 'Facebook and Google have become precisely such entities. These two companies threaten democracy because they have unilateral control over algorithms that structure public debate and access to information, shaping how we consume news, how we communicate with and feel about one another, and how we debate fundamental questions of the common good. Facebook and Google have used their vast troves of data to build sophisticated machine learning algorithms that have come to be a new kind of infrastructure. Their control over this infrastructure concentrates not only economic power, shaping the terms of digital advertising, but also social and political power, shaping the character and content of our digital public sphere.']

[(0, 18)]

ac7a47707ec3c40f58eb165c5d57938a52c9f4ad2bd1888e4fb6d7124534b5cb

The US is an oligarchy – corporations undermine democracy.

Vaheesan ’18 [Sandeep; Legal Director @ Open Markets Institute, JD @ Duke; “The Twilight of the Technocrats' Monopoly on Antitrust,” Yale Law Journal Forum 127, p. 980-995; AS]

Monopolistic businesses use power to win political decisions contest between cities to attract Amazon's headquarters indicative of business's weight banks trigger economic crisis yet defeated efforts to control their size analysis of congressional decision making suggests U S is an oligarchy businesses set the parameters of debate through media sponsorship of figures marginalization of critical voices

Monopolistic and oligopolistic businesses use power to win favorable political and regulatory decisions contest between cities to attract Amazon's second headquarters is indicative of a giant business's weight concentrated financial sector offered a vivid example of corporate political power in action Leading banks helped trigger a worldwide economic crisis yet they defeated political efforts to control their size An influential analysis of congressional decision making suggests the U S is closer to an oligarchy than a democracy the wealthy wield tremendous political clout, whereas ordinary people have little influence.73 Large businesses also set the parameters of political debate through the media sponsorship of supportive figures and organizations, and marginalization of critical voices Consumer welfare itself is a product of big business's reaction against vigorous antitrust program

power political regulatory decisions Amazon's second headquarters worldwide economic crisis congressional decision making oligarchy democracy wealthy set the parameters media supportive figures marginalization big business's reaction

['For the consumer welfare school, the hegemonic power of large corporations is also of no consequence. Monopolistic and oligopolistic businesses across the economy use their power to seek and win favorable political and regulatory decisions.6 9 The ongoing - and frenzied - contest between states and cities to attract Amazon\'s second headquarters is indicative of a giant business\'s weight.70 In recent years, the concentrated financial sector has offered a vivid example of corporate political power in action." Leading banks helped trigger a worldwide economic crisis through their fraud and reckless speculation, and yet they defeated subsequent political efforts to control their size and structure and managed to preserve their institutional power. 72 An influential analysis of congressional decision making suggests that the United States today is closer to an oligarchy than a democracy - the wealthy and large businesses wield tremendous political clout, whereas most ordinary people have little or no influence.73 Large businesses also set the parameters of political debate through control of the media,74 sponsorship of supportive figures and organizations,75 and marginalization of critical voices. 76 Consumer welfare antitrust itself is, at least in part, a product of big business\'s reaction against the relatively vigorous antitrust program of the postwar decades.']

[(0, 12)]

593d6dbdc271ccbeba10f233f120aa878f33e7167471008e48f80fe748d82f9f

Digital authoritarianism causes nuclear war.

Orts ’18 [Eric; June 27; Guardsmark Professor in the Wharton School @ University of Pennsylvania; LinkedIn Pulse, “Foreign Affairs: Six Future Scenarios (and a Seventh),” https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/foreign-affairs-six-future-scenarios-seventh-eric-orts]

There is a future in which Xi regimes are authoritarian this world would be wars with escalation into nuclear conflict militarization (even military robots ), and disasters These stand in the way of solving global problems

There is a nother possible future in which Xi , Erdogan, and others construct regimes that are authoritarian and nationalist this world would be very dark: nationalist wars with risks of escalation into global nuclear conflict , further digital militarization (even Terminator-style smart military robots ), and unchecked climate disasters global challenges are quite large One must remain optimistic that we can overcome tribalism, nationalism, and new fascism. These "isms” stand in the way of solving our biggest global problems , such as risks of thermonuclear war and global climate catastrophe

Xi authoritarian and nationalist nationalist wars escalation into global nuclear conflict military robots unchecked climate disasters thermonuclear war global climate catastrophe

['7. Fascist Nationalism. There is another possible future that the Foreign Affairs scenarios do not contemplate, and it’s a dark world in which Trump, Putin, Xi, Erdogan, and others construct regimes that are authoritarian and nationalist. Fascism is possible in the United States and elsewhere if big business can be seduced by promises of riches in return for the institutional keys to democracy. Perhaps Foreign Affairs editors are right to leave this dark world out, for it would be very dark: nationalist wars with risks of escalation into global nuclear conflict, further digital militarization (even Terminator-style scenarios of smart military robots), and unchecked climate disasters.', 'The global challenges are quite large – and the six pieces do an outstanding job of presenting them. One must remain optimistic and engaged, hopeful that we can overcome the serious dangers of tribalism, nationalism, and new fascism. These "isms” of our time stand in the way of solving some of our biggest global problems, such as the risks of thermonuclear war and global climate catastrophe.']

[(0, 8)]

2acd52460a10d2ef4156d184eb75b3b96b5cd405ca435758b759ec41f5cc663c

Surveillance causes extinction.

Cribb ’19 [Julian; Principal of Julian Cribb & Associates, Founding Editor of ScienceAlert, Author, Journalist, Editor and Science Communicator, “6 - Food as an Existential Risk,” 10/03/2019, Food or War, 1st ed., Cambridge University Press. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1017/9781108690126

computers possible to spy on every person In terms of survival could enforce beliefs – like climate denial – which threaten existence surveillance deter people who produce food sustainably and oppose oil and coal spying could sily silence warning voices who speak out about risks Such increase the likelihood of extinction

computers possible to spy on every person on the planet for the whole of their lives , by mining data that already exists this could be used to influence or compel people to vote for dictators . In terms of human survival , it could be used to enforce beliefs – like climate denial – which threaten the existence of humanity there is no public or ethical oversight of these ultra-powerful technologies, which are open to exploitation They are emerging and evolving fast the use of universal surveillance to silence or deter people who wish to produce food sustainably and who find themselves oppose d to the dominance of oil and coal companies agribusiness their puppet governments and other wielders of power The over-arching issue is that universal spying to subordinate and censor society could very ea sily silence the warning voices who presently speak out about risks to our future . Such a development would increase the likelihood of human extinction

computers spy on every person on the planet whole of their lives mining data already exists influence or compel people vote for dictators human survival enforce beliefs climate denial threaten the existence of humanity no public or ethical oversight exploitation evolving fast universal surveillance silence or deter people produce food sustainably oppose dominance of oil and coal companies agribusiness puppet governments other wielders of power over-arching issue universal spying subordinate and censor society warning voices presently speak out about risks to our future increase the likelihood of human extinction

['– The advent of quantum computers and blockchain herald an age in which it will be possible to spy on every person on the planet for the whole of their lives, by mining the data that already exists in their bank accounts, mobile phones and computers, medical records, CCTV, employment history, etc. In the wrong hands, this could be used to influence or compel people to vote for dictators. In terms of human survival, it could be used to enforce beliefs – like climate denial – which threaten the very existence of humanity.', '– Deliberate misuse and/or accidental disasters created by biotechnology and nanotechnology, such as the manufacture of uncontrollable new lifeforms which prove dangerous, or genetically altered humans.', 'The essential point is that there is no public or ethical oversight of these ultra-powerful technologies, which are open to exploitation by anyone with the resources and who can afford the expertise.', 'They are emerging and evolving far faster than legislators or regulators can keep up. Without strong public oversight, they can very easily be used to enslave humanity, silence dissidents or to control or destroy by various means those whom their overseers want controlled or destroyed.', 'The connection between these supertechnologies and twentyfirst-century warfare is evident. Most are being developed as military technologies, not only by democracies where there is little or no public scrutiny, but also by dictatorships and corporations where there is no public oversight at all. Links with food include the deployment of artificial intelligence for managing corporate super-farms (which may or may not be sustainable), the use of robot swarms and cyber warfare to attack the food systems of potential enemies, and the use of universal surveillance to silence or deter people who wish to produce food sustainably and who find themselves opposed to the dominance of oil and coal companies, agribusiness corporates, their puppet governments and other wielders of power.', 'The over-arching issue is that use of universal spying systems to subordinate and censor the whole society could very easily silence the warning voices who presently speak out about risks to our future. Such a development would increase the likelihood of human extinction.']

[(0, 9)]

38a0883f06f8d2e965580955b632f17cea1c5df2c683630fdc95d6b8d9ecf431

FTC rulemaking frees significant resources.

Chopra & Khan ’20 [Rohit; Commissioner @ Federal Trade Commission; and Lina; Chairperson @ Federal Trade Commission, JD @ Yale Law School; “The Case for “Unfair Methods of Competition” Rulemaking,” The University of Chicago Law Review 87(2), p. 357-380; AS]

rules could help relieve enforcement of steep costs and prolonged trials ex ante would obviate ex post , case-by-case adjudication rulemaking would lessen the burden of fees litigation saving significant resources APA rulemaking can be faster than litigating cases participatory rulemaking can be efficient

establishing rules could help relieve antitrust enforcement of steep costs and prolonged trials ex ante unfair method[s] of competition” would obviate the need to establish the same exclusively through ex post , case-by-case adjudication rulemaking would lessen the burden of expert fees protracted litigation saving significant resources on a present-value basis APA rulemaking can be faster than litigating multiple cases on a similar subject matter At the same time, rulemaking is not so fast that it surprises market participants participatory rulemaking can often be far more efficient

relieve antitrust enforcement steep costs prolonged trials ex post case-by-case adjudication rulemaking expert fees protracted litigation significant resources faster participatory rulemaking efficient

['Second, establishing rules could help relieve antitrust enforcement of steep costs and prolonged trials. Identifying ex ante what types of conduct constitute “unfair method[s] of competition” would obviate the need to establish the same exclusively through ex post, case-by-case adjudication. Targeting conduct through rulemaking, rather than adjudication, would likely lessen the burden of expert fees or protracted litigation, potentially saving significant resources on a present-value basis.47', 'Moreover, establishing a rule through APA rulemaking can be faster than litigating multiple cases on a similar subject matter. For taxpayers and market participants, the present value of net benefits through the promulgation of a clear rule that reduces the need for litigation is higher than pursuing multiple, protracted matters through litigation. At the same time, rulemaking is not so fast that it surprises market participants. Establishing a rule through participatory rulemaking can often be far more efficient. This is particularly important in the context of declining government enforcement relative to economic activity, as documented by the ABA.48 ']

[(0, 17)]

9857d86b9268673d30734390377f3c1030781b17f6843d387231e3c0f1c918b8

The liberal international order prevents global great power war – the alternative is hostile competitive blocs that collapse weak states and undermine collective action on existential risks.

Beckley ’20 [Michael; Associate Professor of Political Science @ Tufts University; “Rogue Superpower Why This Could Be an Illiberal American Century”; Foreign Affairs 99(6), p. 73-87]

if the U S embraced America first” analysts paint catastrophic pictures , in which Russia invades East Asia descends into warfare the postwar order fostered the most peaceful period in history its absence would make the world dangerous assurances benefited everyone : not just allies but also adversaries Moscow and Beijing could focus on forging ties rather than fighting their enemies Such a world would see the return of mercantilism and imperialism China is starting France might seek to restore its grip on former colonies . Russia might accelerate efforts Germany would develop military capacity global governance would erode NATO might dissolve end of the E U arms control by the wayside Efforts to combat climate change financial crises pandemics would mimic response to COVID disorder would jeopardize survival countries depend critically on the postwar order Without support countries would collapse

if the U S fully embraced this America first” vision? analysts paint catastrophic pictures return to the despotism , protectionism , and strife of the 1930s with China and Russia reprising the roles of imperial Japan and Nazi Germany . a violent scramble for security and resources , in which Russia invades its neighbors and East Asia descends into naval warfare they reflect an essential truth the postwar order has fostered the most peaceful and prosperous period in human history , and its absence would make the world a more dangerous place Thanks to the U.S.-led order countries have not had to fight for market access, guard their supply chains, or even seriously defend their borders Such assurances have benefited everyone : not just Washington’s allies and partners but also its adversaries . U.S. security guarantees had the effect of neutering Germany and Japan, the main regional rivals of Russia and China, respectively. In turn, Moscow and Beijing could focus on forging ties with the rest of the world rather than fighting their historical enemies . Without U.S. patronage and protection , countries would have to get back in the business of securing themselves and their economic lifelines . Such a world would see the return of great-power mercantilism and new forms of imperialism . Powerful countries would try to reduce their economic insecurity by establishing exclusive economic zones, China is already starting to do this If the United States follows suit, other countries will have to attach themselves to an American or a Chinese bloc France might seek to restore its grip on its former African colonies . Russia might accelerate its efforts to corral former Soviet states Germany increasingly would have to look beyond Europe’s shrinking populations to find buyers for its exports and it would have to develop the military capacity to secure those new far-flung markets and supply lines, too. global governance would erode . Geopolitical conflict would paralyze the UN NATO might dissolve as the United States cherry-picked partners the unraveling of the U.S. security blanket over Europe could mean the end of the E U arms control treaties might fall by the wayside as countries militarized to defend themselves Efforts to combat transnational problems climate change financial crises , or pandemics would mimic the world’s shambolic response to COVID resulting disorder would jeopardize survival the number of countries in the world has tripled Most of these new states are weak and lack energy, resources, food, domestic markets, advanced technology, military power, or defensible borders two-thirds of all countries today cannot provide basic services to their people without international hel most countries depend critically on the postwar order which has offered historically unprecedented access to international aid, markets, shipping, and protection Without such support , some countries would collapse or be conquered Afghanistan, Haiti, and Liberia are only some of the most obvious high-risk cases . Less obvious ones are capable but trade-dependent countries such as Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and South Korea, whose economic systems would struggle to function in a world of closed markets and militarized sea-lanes .

catastrophic pictures despotism protectionism strife imperial Japan and Nazi Germany Russia invades its neighbors descends into naval warfare reflect an essential truth most peaceful prosperous more dangerous place seriously defend assurances everyone security guarantees forging ties patronage protection securing themselves economic lifelines great-power mercantilism and new forms of imperialism starting to do this France African colonies former Soviet states military capacity global governance Geopolitical conflict UN NATO end E U arms control wayside militarized climate change financial crises pandemics COVID survival weak cannot provide depend critically postwar order collapse high-risk cases struggle closed markets militarized sea-lanes

['What would happen to the world if the United States fully embraced this kind of “America first” vision? Some analysts paint catastrophic pictures. Robert Kagan foresees a return to the despotism, protectionism, and strife of the 1930s, with China and Russia reprising the roles of imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. Peter Zeihan predicts a violent scramble for security and resources, in which Russia invades its neighbors and East Asia descends into naval warfare. These forecasts may be extreme, but they reflect an essential truth: the postwar order, although flawed and incomplete in many ways, has fostered the most peaceful and prosperous period in human history, and its absence would make the world a more dangerous place. ', 'Thanks to the U.S.-led order, for decades, most countries have not had to fight for market access, guard their supply chains, or even seriously defend their borders. The U.S. Navy has kept international waterways open, the U.S. market has provided reliable consumer demand and capital for dozens of countries, and U.S. security guarantees have covered nearly 70 nations. Such assurances have benefited everyone: not just Washington’s allies and partners but also its adversaries. U.S. security guarantees had the effect of neutering Germany and Japan, the main regional rivals of Russia and China, respectively. In turn, Moscow and Beijing could focus on forging ties with the rest of the world rather than fighting their historical enemies. Without U.S. patronage and protection, countries would have to get back in the business of securing themselves and their economic lifelines. ', 'Such a world would see the return of great-power mercantilism and new forms of imperialism. Powerful countries would once again try to reduce their economic insecurity by establishing exclusive economic zones, where their firms could enjoy cheap and secure access to raw materials and large captive consumer markets. Today, China is already starting to do this with its Belt and Road Initiative, a network of infrastructure projects around the world; its “Made in China 2025” policy, to stimulate domestic production and consumption; and its attempts to create a closed-off, parallel Internet. If the United States follows suit, other countries will have to attach themselves to an American or a Chinese bloc—or forge blocs of their own. France might seek to restore its grip on its former African colonies. Russia might accelerate its efforts to corral former Soviet states into a regional trade union. Germany increasingly would have to look beyond Europe’s shrinking populations to find buyers for its exports—and it would have to develop the military capacity to secure those new far-flung markets and supply lines, too. ', 'As great powers competed for economic spheres, global governance would erode. Geopolitical conflict would paralyze the UN, as was the case during the Cold War. NATO might dissolve as the United States cherry-picked partners. And the unraveling of the U.S. security blanket over Europe could mean the end of the European Union, too, which already suffers from deep divisions. The few arms control treaties that remain in force today might fall by the wayside as countries militarized to defend themselves. Efforts to combat transnational problems—such as climate change, financial crises, or pandemics—would mimic the world’s shambolic response to COVID-19, when countries hoarded supplies, the World Health Organization parroted Chinese misinformation, and the United States withdrew into itself. ', 'The resulting disorder would jeopardize the very survival of some states. Since 1945, the number of countries in the world has tripled, from 46 to nearly 200. Most of these new states, however, are weak and lack energy, resources, food, domestic markets, advanced technology, military power, or defensible borders. According to research by the political scientist Arjun Chowdhury, two-thirds of all countries today cannot provide basic services to their people without international help. In short, most countries depend critically on the postwar order, which has offered historically unprecedented access to international aid, markets, shipping, and protection. Without such support, some countries would collapse or be conquered. Fragile, aid-dependent states such as Afghanistan, Haiti, and Liberia are only some of the most obvious high-risk cases. Less obvious ones are capable but trade-dependent countries such as Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and South Korea, whose economic systems would struggle to function in a world of closed markets and militarized sea-lanes. ']

[(0, 11)]

5d15bcad92a5c021eed210bd62cdee32f8e9881c018243ccc0ba8ee8f7c0fe93

Cross-border data flows are key to global trade.

Slaughter & McCormick ’21 [Matthew; Paul Danos Dean and Earl C. Daum 1924 Professor of International Business in the Tuck School of Business @ Dartmouth College, Former Member @ White House Council of Economic Advisers; and David; CEO @ Bridgewater Associates Former Senior Positions @ U.S. Commerce Department, the National Security Council, and U.S. Treasury Department; “Data Is Power: Washington Needs to Craft New Rules for the Digital Age,” Foreign Affairs 100(3), p. 54-63; AS]

Data is at the center of trade cross-border flows grew 112 times over data replaced traditional trade Movies news online physical goods come Cars house electronics physical goods generate data COVID sped up the digital businesses 330 million people made online purchases helping e-commerce hit $25.6 trillion 5G Internet of Things increases communication data remains ungoverned current trade framework was designed in a very different time this is not adequate for trade Confusion about data abounds If the U S does not shape new rules others will

Data is at the center of global trade After the financial crisis growth in trade plateaued, and in its place came cross-border data flows cross-border data flows grew 112 times over from 2008 to 2020 global economy has become perpetual motion machine of data Digital technologies trafficking in data have replaced traditional trade Movies now stream on digital platforms news , books, and research are consumed online Even physical goods come with digital components Cars house electronics capturing data physical goods devices and programs track shipping and generate data COVID sped up the digital transformation of businesses pushing commerce into the cloud Digital trade and the cross-border flow of data show no signs of slowing 330 million people made online purchases involving cross-border data helping e-commerce hit $25.6 trillion Imagine how much data will grow as broadband access spreads 5G wireless allows more data to transfer and the Internet of Things increases machine-to-machine communication data is intertwined with power As an increasingly necessary input for innovation rapidly expanding element of international trade a vital ingredient in corporate success and an important dimension of national security data offers incredible advantages It is also readily abused Countries and companies wish to undermine privacy data remains largely ungoverned current international trade and investment framework was designed in a very different time this system is not adequate for the reality of global trade today Confusion about data abounds major powers have competing visions of how to manage it. If the U S does not shape new rules for the digital age others will China is promulgating its techno-authoritarian model recognizing the rules of digital power is a key component of geopolitical competition

Data center global trade cross-border data flows 112 times over perpetual motion machine traditional trade digital platforms online digital components data shipping COVID cloud Digital trade no signs 330 million people $25.6 trillion broadband access 5G wireless Internet of Things power innovation international trade corporate success national security incredible advantages undermine privacy largely ungoverned very different time not adequate global trade data U S new rules others will China techno-authoritarian model key component

['Data is now at the center of global trade. For decades, international trade in goods and services set the pace of globalization. After the global financial crisis, however, growth in trade plateaued, and in its place came an explosion of cross-border data flows. Measured by bandwidth, cross-border data flows grew roughly 112 times over from 2008 to 2020.', 'The global economy has become a perpetual motion machine of data: it consumes it, processes it, and produces ever more quantities of it. Digital technologies trafficking in data now enable, and in some cases have replaced, traditional trade in goods and services. Movies, once sold primarily as DVDS, now stream on digital platforms, and news, books, and research papers are consumed online. Even physical goods come laden with digital components. Cars are no longer merely chassis built around internal combustion engines; they also house complex electronics and software capturing massive amounts of data. Trade in physical goods also comes with digital enablers, such as devices and programs that track shipping containers, and these likewise generate data and improve efficiency. And now, COVID-19 has sped up the digital transformation of businesses, pushing even more commerce into the cloud.', "Digital trade and the cross-border flow of data show no signs of slowing. In 2018, 330 million people made online purchases from other countries, each involving the cross-border transmission of data, helping e-commerce hit $25.6 trillion in sales, even though only about 60 percent of the world is online. Imagine how much data will grow as broadband access spreads to the developing world's rapidly expanding populations, 5G wireless technology allows even more extraordinary amounts of data to transfer at lightning speed, and the so-called Internet of Things dramatically increases machine-to-machine communication.", 'These massive changes are not merely transforming trade; they are also upending global politics. Even more than other elements of the global economy, data is intertwined with power. As an increasingly necessary input for innovation, a rapidly expanding element of international trade, a vital ingredient in corporate success, and an important dimension of national security, data offers incredible advantages to all who hold it. It is also readily abused. Countries and companies that seek anticompetitive advantages try to control data. So do those that wish to undermine liberty and privacy.', 'Yet even as cross-border flows of data have surged, and data itself has become a critical source of power, it remains largely ungoverned. The current international trade and investment framework was designed 75 years ago, in a very different time. It advanced prosperity and security, helped lift millions out of poverty, and, as part of a broader economic order, encouraged democracy, commerce, and individual rights. But this system is not adequate for the reality of global trade today. Confusion about the value and ownership of data abounds, and major world powers have competing visions of how to manage it.', "If the United States does not shape new rules for the digital age, others will. China, for example, is promulgating its own techno-authoritarian model, recognizing that shaping the rules of digital power is a key component of geopolitical competition. The United States should offer an alternative: with a coalition of willing partners, it should set up a new framework, one that unleashes data's potential to drive innovation, generate economic power, and protect national security."]

[(0, 25)]

225d2de45d3cafc12d8926623bf14359971a191eae8a2aef725266a698c10c09

Dominant platforms pose cybersecurity risks – preventing concentration is key.

Khan ’19 [Lina; Chairperson @ Federal Trade Commission, JD @ Yale Law School; “The Separations of Platforms and Commerce,” Columbia Law Review 119(4), p. 973-1098; AS]

commerce and communications rely on dominant platforms system crash could have cascading effects given reliance on super’ suppliers cyberattack can creat systemic disruption AWS leads cloud computing concentration has risks. fragility security vulnerabilities Homogeneity render a system susceptible to hacks Amazon winning contract for Pentagon prompted cybersecurity risks company designated as “ critical infrastructure

As online commerce and communications rely on dominant online platforms resiliency of platform infrastructure becomes paramount concentrating activity can concentrate risk, creating the possibility a single system crash could have cascading effects an essential network platform “can be viewed as common property that belongs to all companies that rely on it” and therefore no one is responsible for ensuring the system is safe shutdown in Japanese automobile manufacturing disrupted operations at an industrial firm that produced an automobile part used by all Japanese automakers illustrate the problems that result when an entire industry utilizes the same infrastructure given increasing reliance on “single ‘ super’ suppliers throughout the economy a cyberattack can shut down a supplier creat ing a systemic disruption AWS leads the cloud computing market capturing a greater share than its next three competitors combined This concentration has two risks. One is general fragility single outage led Netflix, Reddit, Business Insider, and several other websites to crash for five hours second risk is the security vulnerabilities created by monoculture Homogeneity can render a system more susceptible to malware or hacks risk recognized in computer systems As more businesses use AWS as default computing power systemic ramifications are not trivial prospect of Amazon winning single-source contract for the Pentagon prompted concerns awarding the business to a single provider could increase cybersecurity risks Analogous concerns raised by Google’s dominance prompted debate whether company should be designated as “ critical infrastructure these resiliency concerns are responding to concentration

online commerce communications dominant online platforms concentrating activity single system crash cascading effects no one safe all Japanese automakers entire industry same infrastructure cyberattack systemic disruption cloud computing market concentration general fragility security vulnerabilities monoculture more susceptible malware hacks computer systems systemic ramifications Pentagon single provider cybersecurity risks Google’s dominance critical infrastructure concentration

['System Resiliency. — As a growing share of online commerce and communications rely on dominant online platforms, the resiliency of platform infrastructure becomes paramount. Yet concentrating activity can also concentrate risk, creating the possibility that a single system crash could have cascading effects.588 [**Start footnote 588** For in-depth analysis of how excessive concentration can heighten system fragility, see generally Barry C. Lynn, End of the Line: The Rise and Coming Fall of the Global Corporation 11 (2005) (arguing that an essential network platform “can be viewed as common property that belongs to all of the companies that rely on it” and therefore, “no one, quite naturally, is responsible for ensuring that the system is safe”); Barry C. Lynn, Built To Break, Challenge, Mar.–Apr. 2012, at 87, 94–95 (describing a shutdown in Japanese automobile manufacturing following a 2007 earthquake, which disrupted operations at an industrial firm that produced an automobile part used by all Japanese automakers, and using this example to illustrate the problems that result when an entire industry utilizes the same infrastructure); Yossi Sheffi & Barry C. Lynn, Systemic Supply Chain Risk, Bridge, Fall 2014, at 22, 25–26 (noting how, given increasing reliance on “single ‘super’ suppliers” throughout the economy, “[a] strike, sabotage, financial problem, or cyberattack can shut down a supplier, . . . creating a systemic disruption”). For an argument for why antitrust analysis generally and merger enforcement specifically should take fragility and resiliency concerns into account, see Peter C. Carstensen & Robert H. Lande, The Merger Incipiency Doctrine and the Importance of “Redundant” Competitors, 2019 Wis. L. Rev. (forthcoming) (manuscript at 58–63) (on file with the Columbia Law Review). **End Footnote 588**]For example, AWS leads the cloud computing market, capturing a greater share than its next three competitors combined.589 This level of concentration has at least two potential risks. One is general fragility. For example, a single outage at AWS a few years ago led Netflix, Reddit, Business Insider, and several other major websites to crash for five hours.590 The second risk is the security vulnerabilities created by monoculture. Homogeneity can render a system more susceptible to malware or hacks, a risk recognized in the context of computer systems.591 As more businesses come to use AWS as default computing power (the company counts among its clients the CIA592), the potential systemic ramifications are not trivial. Indeed, the prospect of Amazon winning a single-source contract for the Pentagon has prompted concerns that awarding the business to a single provider could increase cybersecurity risks.593 Analogous concerns raised by Google’s dominance have prompted policy officials to debate whether the company should be designated as “critical infrastructure.”594 Notably, these resiliency concerns are primarily responding to concentration, not integration. A vertical separation would not address the underlying issue, unless exiting an adjacent market would reduce exposure to risk.']

[(0, 8)]

c29136e698fec22082be41649472202884fd4fdbb21df9b8df68e9745986962e

Convergence on EU-US policy ensures effective extraterritorial enforcement for global trade.

Heinemann & Choi ’20 [Andreas; Associate Professor of Law in Graduate School of International and Area Studies @ Hankuk University of Foreign Studies; and Yo Sop; Professor in Law @ University of Zurich; “Competition and Trade: The Rise of Competition Law in Trade Agreements and Its Implications for the World Trading System,” World Competition 43(4), p. 521-542; AS]

without competition it is difficult to have trade restraints on trade through discriminating foreign enterprises generates entry barriers effects analogous to tariffs there are divergences that impede trade business practice create concern in some despite not perceived in other s This leads to tensions when they apply extraterritorially to foreign companies harmonizing laws may represent a solution convergence can develop trade facilitated by the US EU competition regimes reveal preference for certainty similar to the EU

without competition law it is difficult to have free trade the existence of private restraints on international trade through private economic power such as discriminating foreign enterprises generates market entry barriers international cartels influence market access cartels at the downstream level or v ertical restraints have negative effects similar to those of import tariffs and collusion at the upstream level or abuse of market dominance may have effects analogous to export tariffs , an appropriate legal framework to remove private restraints on trade or barriers to market access plays an important role for international trade competition law is consistent with free trade globalization of commerce has prompted the adoption of competition laws when after increase in transactions across borders potentially anti-competitive effects are obs the spread of competition laws is an apparent reaction to the globalization of businesses transition to a market economy system and rapid globalization have led to an increase in the number of competition regimes recently reaching more than 130 jurisdictions demonstrating the importance of competition law with regard to the business conduct of MNEs Despite growing importance of competition law for trade there are divergences among competition regimes that may impede the progress of trade a certain type of business practice may create a competition concern in some countries, despite not being perceived as a violation of competition law in other jurisdiction s This leads to tensions between competition authorities particularly when they apply their competition law extraterritorially to foreign companies harmonizing competition laws may represent a solution harmonization seems feasible competition law convergence can a crucial role in the develop ment of trade Given the rapid proliferation of national competition laws and the evolution of global market integration, it ha s even become imperative to find common ground Convergence is facilitated by the fact competition regimes have been modelled on examples from the US the EU several Asian countries accepted competition law ideas from Europe the advanced competition regimes reveal a preference for legal certainty that is similar to the approach in the EU

competition law free trade international trade discriminating entry barriers market access v ertical restraints import tariffs upstream level export tariffs market access international trade competition law free trade competition laws anti-competitive competition laws globalization transition competition regimes 130 jurisdictions MNEs trade divergences competition regimes trade not being perceived tensions extraterritorially foreign companies harmonizing solution harmonization feasible competition law develop ment of trade proliferation national competition laws it s imperative common ground Convergence competition regimes US EU Europe advanced legal certainty approach in the EU

['1 INTRODUCTION', 'Trade law and competition law1 share a common goal, which is the protection of the competitive process in open markets, thereby maximizing the welfare of the society including the optimal allocation of international resources and the promotion of innovation.2 There is a converging view that, without national competition law and policy, it is difficult to have free trade. In other words, the existence of private restraints on international trade3 through the use of private economic power,4 such as the collusive practices of discriminating foreign enterprises, generates market entry barriers: international and national cartels influence market access.5 For example, cartels at the downstream level or vertical restraints have negative effects similar to those of import tariffs, and collusion at the upstream level or abuse of market dominance may have effects analogous to export tariffs.6 Therefore, an appropriate legal framework to remove these private restraints on trade or barriers to market access plays an important role for international trade.7', 'The fields of trade and competition law are often considered to be complementary8 ; indeed, a common focus of trade law and competition law is to eliminate barriers to entry. Thus, competition law does not stand in opposition to but is consistent with free trade.9 In particular, the globalization of commerce has prompted the adoption of competition laws when, after the increase in transactions across borders, potentially anti-competitive effects are observed.10 Therefore, the spread of competition laws is an apparent reaction to the globalization of both national and international businesses.11 The transition to a market economy system and rapid globalization have led to an increase in the number of competition regimes, recently reaching more than 130 jurisdictions,12 demonstrating the importance of competition law with regard to the business conduct of multinational enterprises (MNEs).13', 'Despite the growing importance of competition law for trade, there are disparities or divergences among competition regimes that may impede the progress of trade because of their distinctive backgrounds, such as different cultures, legal systems, politics and levels of economic development.14 For instance, a certain type of business practice may create a competition concern in some countries, despite not being perceived as a violation of competition law in other jurisdictions.15 This leads to tensions between competition authorities, particularly when they apply their competition law extraterritorially to foreign companies.16 In effect, harmonizing competition laws may represent a solution,17 although perfect harmonization seems rather idealistic.18 However, a moderate level of harmonization seems feasible.19', 'Bilateral and regional trade agreements may be used for this purpose.20 The parties to these agreements may progress by mutual learning and comparative competition law studies, defining the various local experiences involved in each competition regime. On this basis, ‘localized harmonization’ may be achieved, building on the specific features of the partners to the bilateral or regional agreement and taking advantage of the greater similar backgrounds of states prepared to enter into a special relationship or belonging to the same world region. Localized harmonization may mitigate the problem of clashes in competition law and reduce the cost of compliance for MNEs.21 In general, competition law convergence can play a crucial role in the development of trade.22 Given the rapid proliferation of national competition laws and the evolution of global market integration, it has even become imperative to find common ground.23', 'Convergence is facilitated by the fact that most competition regimes, especially in the developing world, have been modelled on other examples, such as those from the US, the EU, or respective neighbouring countries.24 In particular, several Asian countries seem to have accepted competition law ideas from Europe. One of the factors behind the significant influence of EU competition law seems to be the fact that legal systems in these countries are based on continental European civil law. For example, the relatively advanced competition regimes in Northeast Asia (including South Korea, China and Japan), all of which have vigorously enforced their competition laws, reveal a preference for legal certainty that is similar to the approach in the EU.25 In a second step, the early adopters of competition regimes appear to have encouraged their trading partners – which initially only had unfledged competition regimes – to accept the European competition law framework.26 In a third step, growing convergence has led to comparable forms of competition chapters in bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) in this region. This process is an example of localized harmonization as described above.']

[(0, 20)]

b0d1cb75eac38e15bb80a7f3da7e6dcbc52d1541de9629728a4b3e63779209d7

Global antitrust remedies promoting fair competition are key to free trade.

Peinert ’20 [Erik; Department of Political Science @ Brown University; “Cartels, competition, and coalitions: the domestic drivers of international orders,” Review of International Political Economy, p. 1-25; AS]

scholarship in trade assume liberalization increases competition focus on the binary between protectionism and liberalization concentrated firms reap the benefits of trade markets vary beyond protectionism what are interests relative to concentration? monopoly power and entry barriers define trade by deciding what economic power are permitted antitrust play a role in shaping differences markets are complex , and comprise relationships which distort consequences predicted by neoclassical trade market power should not be reduced to efficiency -trade grew out of antitrust preferences for trade emerged motivated by competition as a goal in itself trade remain inexplicable if competition are ignored push for other s to adopt antitrust and extraterritorial application of This account highlights the link between trade and antitrust

Most scholarship in IPE of trade continues to assume a harmonious relationship whereby trade liberalization directly increases domestic competition IPE tends to focus on the binary between protectionism and liberalization in the current historical moment increasingly concentrated set of economic actors and firms appear to be reap ing the benefits of trade liberalization variation defining these differences is absent from theoretical models In practice markets vary in substance and interactions beyond presence or lack of protectionism Whereas trade openness may benefits one what are its interests relative to international cartels Or economic concentration? Or i p r monopoly power and entry barriers define consequences of trade and markets by deciding what forms of economic power are permitted antitrust play a central role in shaping these differences markets are complex , and comprise a network of relationships which distort consequences that would be predicted by neoclassical trade These distortions are the result of differences in market power between firms that should not be reduced to efficiency The state has a public interest concern to intervene to promote competitive forces This argument is supported with evidence showing free -trade grew out of debates among state actors over antitrust This is central of trade liberalization American preferences for free trade emerged motivated by preferences to encourage competition as a goal in itself trade policies remain inexplicable if competition and market power are ignored push for other countrie s to adopt antitrust laws promotion of anti-cartel clauses in trade agreements and extraterritorial application of American antitrust laws This account highlights the link between trade and antitrust policies and the importance understanding role of competition and market power

Most scholarship IPE assume directly increases binary protectionism liberalization concentrated reap ing trade liberalization absent markets presence lack protectionism international cartels economic concentration? i p r monopoly power entry barriers trade markets economic power antitrust central role markets complex network of relationships consequences neoclassical trade market power efficiency intervene competitive forces evidence free -trade state actors antitrust central trade liberalization free trade encourage competition in itself trade policies competition market power other countrie s adopt antitrust laws trade agreements extraterritorial application American antitrust laws trade antitrust policies competition market power

['Most scholarship in the international political economy (IPE) of trade continues to assume a harmonious relationship whereby trade liberalization directly increases domestic competition. Specifically, IPE tends to focus primarily on (a) the binary between protectionism and liberalization and (b) the influence of private lobbying. A comparative advantage over foreign industries, or simply a productivity advantage over other firms, creates asymmetrical interests in favor of trade liberalization, and those more productive firms will lobby for liberalization against those likely to be harmed by it.1', 'While these simplifications are powerful analytical tools, in the current historical moment, an increasingly concentrated set of economic actors and firms appear to be reaping most of the benefits of trade liberalization (Baccini et al., 2017) and economic growth more generally (Autor et al., 2020; De Loecker et al., 2020). Much of the variation defining these differences in economic or political power—competition, concentration, regulation, collusion, bargaining power, etc.—is absent from the theoretical models that dominate international political economy. In practice, markets vary in their substance and interactions along many dimensions beyond the presence or lack of protectionism. Whereas trade openness may provide clear benefits to one industry, ceteris paribus, what are its interests relative to international cartels? Or economic concentration? Or intellectual property rights? Economic coordination, monopoly power, bargaining position, cartels, and entry barriers define many of the distributive consequences of both trade and markets in general.', 'This article argues that by deciding who is allowed to coordinate, what forms of economic power are permitted, and how the process of setting prices and determining incomes ought to occur, state regulatory policies like antitrust play a central role in shaping these differences. Actual markets are complex, and comprise a network of relationships between competitors, suppliers, and customers which often distort the expected distributional consequences and benefits that would be predicted by neoclassical trade theories. These distortions are often the result of differences in market power between firms and industries—whether by concentration or legal device—that should not be reduced to apolitical differences in productivity, efficiency, or factor mobility. The state is often endowed with analytical capabilities that private actors are not and has a public interest concern to intervene in these relationships to promote, limit, or reorient competitive forces.', 'This argument is supported with new archival evidence showing how many of the American free-trade policies after World War II grew out of earlier debates among state actors over domestic industrial organization and antitrust during the 1930s. This episode is one of the most central cases of trade liberalization in world history, resulting in the creation and continuous expansion of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Contrary to accounts that portray the domestic antimonopoly policies of the late New Deal as having failed (Brinkley, 1995; Hawley, 1966) or that post-war trade policy under the GATT was determined by conflict between private protectionist and free-trade interests (Bailey et al., 1997; Chorev, 2007; Goldstein, 1989; Haggard, 1988; Hiscox, 1999; Peters, 2014), this article highlights the degree to which American preferences for free trade emerged in conjunction with, and motivated by, preferences to encourage competition as a goal in itself. Many aspects of the United States’ post-war trade policies remain inexplicable if competition and market power considerations are ignored: a push for other countries to adopt antitrust laws, the promotion of anti-cartel clauses in trade agreements and on Marshall Plan funds, and the extraterritorial application of American antitrust laws. This account, along with more recent historiography (Freyer, 2006; Wells, 2002),2 highlights the link between trade and antitrust policies, and the importance of understanding the more general role of competition and market power in international political economy.']

[(0, 11)]

59a31267cfead6949c9f8ab3be6a925bdabfa91c008018d234dbeaf21402c0f5

AI enabled by machine learning will act in ways humans cannot code or predict.

Turner ’19 [Jacob; MA in Law @ Oxford, LLM in International Law and Legal Studies @ Harvard Law, Barrister @ Fountain Court Chambers; Palgrave MacMillan, “Unique Features of AI” in Robot Rules: Regulating Artificial Intelligence, Ch. 2]

Independent Development means a system has capability to learn from data unplanned by designers the system generates hypotheses about future unlabelled data In unsupervised learning the algorithm is presented data not labels or feedback Unsupervised learning can discover knowledge programmers do not need to know anything to create two neural networks and pit them against each other drives both to improve GANs open a world of possibilities

Independent Development AI capable of “independent development” means a system has capability to learn from data sets in a manner unplanned by AI system’s designers and ability of AI systems to themselves develop new and improved AI systems which are not replications of the “seed” program. Machine Learning is defined as study that gives computers the ability to learn without being explicitly programmed machine learning can be supervised, unsupervised, or reinforcement In supervised learning the algorithm is given training data As a result of this feedback, the system generates hypotheses about how to categorise future unlabelled data , In unsupervised learning , the algorithm is presented with data but not labels or feedback Unsupervised learning group data into clusters of similar features Unsupervised learning is particularly exciting it can be used to discover knowledge programmers do not need to know anything about the patterns in the data the system can find these and draw inferences all by itself A particularly vivid example was a program that, after being exposed to the entire YouTube library, was able to recognise images of cat faces despite the data being unlabelled This process applications include genomics Goodfellow developed Generative Adversarial Nets The team to create two neural networks and pit them against each other with one model creating new data instances and the other evaluating them for authenticity analogous to counterfeiters the police Competition drives both teams to improve GANs open the door to a n entire world of possibilities

Independent Development learn from data sets develop new and improved AI systems without being explicitly programmed reinforcement training data future unlabelled data not labels or feedback particularly exciting discover knowledge programmers all by itself images of cat faces despite the data being unlabelled genomics Adversarial Nets pit them against each other authenticity improve entire world of possibilities

['3.2 Independent Development', 'In this book, AI capable of “independent development” means a system which has at least one of the following qualities: (a) the capability to learn from data sets in a manner unplanned by AI system’s designers; and (b) the ability of AI systems to themselves develop new and improved AI systems which are not mere replications of the original “seed” program.115', '3.2.1 Machine Learning and Adaptation', 'A machine learns whenever it changes its structure, program or data, in such a manner that its expected future performance improves.116 In 1959, Arthur Samuel, a pioneer in AI and computer gaming, is said to have defined machine learning as the “[f]ield of study that gives computers the ability to learn without being explicitly programmed”.117', 'In the 1990s, an expert in the field of “evolvable hardware”, Adrian Thompson, used a program which foreshadowed today’s machine learning AI to design a circuit that could discriminate between two audio tones. He was surprised to find that the circuit used fewer components than he had anticipated. In a striking early example of adaptive technology, it transpired that the circuit had made use of barely perceptible electromagnetic interference created as a side effect between adjacent components.118', 'Today, machine learning can be categorised broadly as supervised, unsupervised, or reinforcement. In supervised learning, the algorithm is given training data which contains the “correct answer” for each example.119 A supervised learning algorithm for credit card fraud detection could take as input a set of recorded transactions, and for each individual datum (i.e. each transaction), the training data would contain a flag that says if it is fraudulent or not.120 In supervised learning, specific error messages are crucial, as opposed to feedback which merely tells the system that it was mistaken. As a result of this feedback, the system generates hypotheses about how to categorise future unlabelled data, which it updates based on the feedback it is given each time. Although human input is required to monitor and provide feedback, the novel aspect of a supervised learning system is that its hypotheses about the data, and their improvements over time, are not pre-programmed.', 'In unsupervised learning, the algorithm is presented with data but not given any labels or feedback. Unsupervised learning systems function by grouping the data into clusters of similar features. Unsupervised learning is particularly exciting from the perspective of independent development because it can, in the words of the eminent cognitive scientist Margaret Boden, “be used to discover knowledge”: the programmers do not need to know anything about the patterns in the data—the system can find these and draw inferences all by itself.121 Zoubin Ghahramani, Chief Scientist of Uber, explains:', 'It may seem somewhat mysterious to imagine what the machine could possibly learn given that it doesn’t get any feedback from its environment. However, it is possible to develop [a] formal framework for unsupervised learning based on the notion that the machine’s goal is to build representations of the input that can be used for decision making, predicting future inputs, efficiently communicating the inputs to another machine, etc. In a sense, unsupervised learning can be thought of as finding patterns in the data above and beyond what would be considered pure unstructured noise.122', 'A particularly vivid example of unsupervised learning was a program that, after being exposed to the entire YouTube library, was able to recognise images of cat faces, despite the data being unlabelled.123 This process is not limited to frivolous uses such as feline identification: its applications include genomics as well as in social network analysis.124', 'Reinforcement learning, sometimes referred to as “weak supervision”, is a type of machine learning which maps situations and actions so as to maximise a reward signal. The program is not told which actions to take, but instead has to discover which actions yield the most reward through an iterative process: in other words, it learns through trying different things out.125 one use of reinforcement learning involves a program being asked to achieve a certain goal, but without being told how it should do so.', 'In 2014, Ian Goodfellow and colleagues including Yoshua Bengio at the University of Montreal developed a new technique for machine learning which goes even further towards taking humans out of the picture: Generative Adversarial Nets (GANs). The team’s insight was to create two neural networks and pit them against each other, with one model creating new data instances and the other evaluating them for authenticity. Goodfellow et al. summarised this new technique as: “...analogous to a team of counterfeiters, trying to produce fake currency and use it without detection, while the discriminative model is analogous to the police, trying to detect the counterfeit currency. Competition in this game drives both teams to improve their methods until the counterfeits are indistiguishable from the genuine articles”.126 Yann LeCun, director of AI Research at Facebook, has described GANs as “the most interesting idea in the last 10 years in [machine learning]”, and as a technique which “opens the door to an entire world of possibilities”.127']

[(0, 10)]

1d1d47871a7b626d691d5de4dc9958abd1ffb4d44378f2b0d34f209f1bc9fa23

Warming is existential.

Ng ’19 [Yew-Kwang; Professor of Economics @ Nanyang Technology University, PhD in Economics @ Sydney University; Global Policy, “Keynote: Global Extinction and Animal Welfare: Two Priorities for Effective Altruism,” vol. 10]

climate causing extinction is due to non ‐ linearity , cascading feedbacks and tipping points ice collapse cause sea level rise’ melting increases warming and carbon producing runaway warming the adaptability limit to mak extinction likely and moderate models unreliabl Even if there is 1 per cent probability Extinction is more important by a trillion

climate change causing global extinction is possible due to interrelated factors of non ‐ linearity , cascading effects , positive feedbacks , multiplicative factors , critical thresholds and tipping points A imminent tipping point could be ‘an abrupt ice sheet collapse [that] could cause rapid sea level rise’ There are many avenues for positive feedback replacement of an ice sea by a liquid surface from melting increases absorption of sunlight, leading to faster warming drying of forests increases forest fires and release of more carbon ocean temperatures lead to release of methane producing runaway global warming ‘The world is completely unprepared to envisage, and deal with CCC’ The threat of sea‐level rising from warming is well known, but there likely and imminent threats to the survivability of mankind the adaptability limit to climate change due to heat stress from high temperature ‘even modest warming could expose large fractions of the [world] to unprecedented heat stress’ and with substantial warming, ‘the area of land rendered uninhabitable would dwarf sea level’ mak ing extinction likely and the moderate assessment models unreliabl y low we cannot rule it out probabilities of 5 per cent, 0.5 per cent or even 0.005 per cent of excessive warming and resulting extinction probabilities cannot be ruled out and are unacceptable . Even if there is only a 1 per cent probability that there is a bomb in the airplane, you want to change your flight. Extinction of the whole world is more important to avoid by a trillion times

global extinction interrelated factors non ‐ linearity cascading effects positive feedbacks multiplicative factors critical thresholds tipping points imminent ice sheet collapse rapid positive feedback increases absorption faster warming forests more carbon methane runaway completely unprepared sea‐level rising likely imminent survivability of mankind adaptability limit heat stress modest large fractions unprecedented uninhabitable extinction likely unreliabl y low 0.005 per cent extinction probabilities unacceptable 1 per cent probability whole world more important trillion times

['Catastrophic climate change', 'Though by no means certain, CCC causing global extinction is possible due to interrelated factors of non‐linearity, cascading effects, positive feedbacks, multiplicative factors, critical thresholds and tipping points (e.g. Barnosky and Hadly,\xa0; Belaia et\xa0al.,\xa0; Buldyrev et\xa0al.,\xa0; Grainger,\xa0; Hansen and Sato,\xa0; IPCC\xa0; Kareiva and Carranza,\xa0; Osmond and Klausmeier,\xa0; Rothman,\xa0; Schuur et\xa0al.,\xa0; Sims and Finnoff,\xa0; Van Aalst,\xa0).', 'A possibly imminent tipping point could be in the form of ‘an abrupt ice sheet collapse [that] could cause a rapid sea level rise’ (Baum et\xa0al.,\xa0, p. 399). There are many avenues for positive feedback in global warming, including:', 'the replacement of an ice sea by a liquid ocean surface from melting reduces the reflection and increases the absorption of sunlight, leading to faster warming;', 'the drying of forests from warming increases forest fires and the release of more carbon; and', 'higher ocean temperatures may lead to the release of methane trapped under the ocean floor, producing runaway global warming.', 'Though there are also avenues for negative feedback, the scientific consensus is for an overall net positive feedback (Roe and Baker,\xa0). Thus, the Global Challenges Foundation (, p. 25) concludes, ‘The world is currently completely unprepared to envisage, and even less deal with, the consequences of CCC’.', 'The threat of sea‐level rising from global warming is well known, but there are also other likely and more imminent threats to the survivability of mankind and other living things. For example, Sherwood and Huber () emphasize the adaptability limit to climate change due to heat stress from high environmental wet‐bulb temperature. They show that ‘even modest global warming could … expose large fractions of the [world] population to unprecedented heat stress’ p. 9552 and that with substantial global warming, ‘the area of land rendered uninhabitable by heat stress would dwarf that affected by rising sea level’ p. 9555, making extinction much more likely and the relatively moderate damages estimated by most integrated assessment models unreliably low.', 'While imminent extinction is very unlikely and may not come for a long time even under business as usual, the main point is that we cannot rule it out. Annan and Hargreaves (, pp. 434–435) may be right that there is ‘an upper 95 per cent probability limit for S [temperature increase] … to lie close to 4°C, and certainly well below 6°C’. However, probabilities of 5 per cent, 0.5 per cent, 0.05 per cent or even 0.005 per cent of excessive warming and the resulting extinction probabilities cannot be ruled out and are unacceptable. Even if there is only a 1 per cent probability that there is a time bomb in the airplane, you probably want to change your flight. Extinction of the whole world is more important to avoid by literally a trillion times.']

[(0, 6)]

84b403c96afba3632da1382dac6a8e8fa70a4e2aad840cdb82e136965e40687f

Personhood rebundles liability in the AI, making cases clear for consumers. Personhood shifts cost allocation work to expert private liability insurers.

Fenwick ’22 [Mark; Professor of International Business Law at the Faculty of Law @ Kyushu University; Stefan Wrbka; Professor of Business Law @ University of Applied Sciences for Management and Communication; “AI and Legal Personhood” in The Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence: Global Perspectives on Law and Ethics, Ch. 20]

there might be good evidential reasons for some personhood persons injured face serious difficulties identifying the party responsible administrative costs of enforcing liability may be excessively high In a market of unbundled products elevation of AI to person may serve as rebundling’ responsibility The burden of identifying the party responsible would be shifted onto liability insurers professional players equipped to investigate facts

there might be good evidential reasons for supporting some form of personhood persons injured by an AI may face serious difficulties in identifying the party who is responsible the responsibility of the user may be difficult to establish for courts the administrative costs of enforcing a liability model both for courts , as well as potential plaintiffs may be excessively high a more pragmatic approach may be preferable In a market of highly sophisticated unbundled products elevation of the AI system to a person may serve as a useful mechanism for ‘ rebundling’ responsibility in an era of modularization and globalization The burden of identifying the party responsible would be shifted away from victims onto the liability insurers of the robot Such liability insurers would be professional players who may be better equipped to investigate the facts evaluate the evidence

evidential identifying the party who is responsible difficult to establish for courts administrative costs courts potential plaintiffs excessively high preferable highly sophisticated unbundled rebundling’ responsibility modularization and globalization away from victims liability insurers professional players facts

['Nevertheless, in spite of these difficulties, there still might be good evidential reasons for supporting some form of personhood. As argued in Section 20.3, persons injured by an AI system may face serious difficulties in identifying the party who is responsible, particularly if establishing a ‘deployer’ is a condition of liability. And where autonomous AI systems are no longer marketed as an integrated bundle of hardware and software – that is, in a world of unbundled, modular technologies as described in Section 20.1 – the malfunctioning of the robot is no evidence that the hardware product put into circulation by the AI system developer, manufacturer-producer or the software downloaded from another developer was defective. Likewise, the responsibility of the user may be difficult to establish for courts. In short, the administrative costs of enforcing a liability model – both for courts, as well as potential plaintiffs – may be excessively high and a more pragmatic approach may be preferable, even if it is not perfect.', 'In a market of highly sophisticated, unbundled products, the elevation of the AI system to a person may also serve as a useful mechanism for ‘rebundling’ responsibility in an era of modularization and globalization. The burden of identifying the party responsible for the malfunction or other defect would then be shifted away from victims and onto the liability insurers of the robot. Such liability insurers, in turn, would be professional players who may be better equipped to investigate the facts, evaluate the evidence and pose a credible threat to hold the AI system developer, hardware manufacturer or user-operator accountable. The question would then be whether an insurance scheme of this kind is more effectively combined with some partial form of legal personhood or not.']

[(0, 11)]

7de39cea23d3ac1d69a414ad0265b285dcda2a2490a70f06d2368341633753f7

Holding the manufacturer liable regardless of fault – or strict liability – insulates the supply chain and deters innovation.

Novelli ’22 [Claudio; Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Centre for Digital Ethics, Department of Legal Studies @ University of Bologna; AI & Society, “Legal Personhood for the Integration of AI Systems in the Social Context: A Study Hypothesis,” p. 1-13]

strict liability systems are associated with higher costs downturn for young industry such as AI could have detrimental effects including lack of social trust and loss of innovation. strict liability require causation which would not be straightforward for AIs due to distant contributors a distant contributor is not liable, strict liability result in lower levels of care for distant parties the typical effect internalisation of costs is undermined tort rules do not function

tort law rules play a role in the size of the industry and the price of goods strict liability systems are associated with higher costs A downturn for a relatively young industry such as AI could have detrimental effects including a lack of social trust in new technology and a loss of innovation. strict liability schemes still require proof of causation which would not be straightforward for AIs due to increasing connectivity distant contributors e.g. supplying faulty data cannot be detected a more distant contributor acting in breach of duty is not held liable, strict liability may result in an incentive for lower levels of care for the distant parties the typical effect of strict liability internalisation of the costs is undermined it can be too onerous for the victim to identify perpetrator(s) and the causal link to file a lawsuit If the victim is disincentivised to claim compensation tort liability rules do not function properly.

size of the industry price of goods higher costs relatively young industry such as AI detrimental effects social trust in new technology loss of innovation. causation straightforward for AIs connectivity detected lower levels of care for the distant parties undermined too onerous disincentivised to claim compensation

['As a matter of fact, tort law rules play a role in the size of the industry and the price of goods: negligence liability systems are associated with lower costs in supplying goods, since the producer can escape liability by meeting legal standards of care, whereas strict liability systems are associated with higher costs. As a consequence, industry will be allowed to grow with negligence-based liability, because of the effect on the demand curve of a lower price of goods (Cooter 1991). A downturn for a relatively young industry such as AI could have detrimental effects including, for instance, a lack of social trust in new technology and a loss of innovation.', 'On top of that, relative strict liability schemes still require proof of causation, which would not be always straightforward for AIs “[…] due to the increasing connectivity, situations may arise where distant contributors (e.g. by supplying faulty data) cannot be detected. In cases where an immediate causal person acting in accordance with duties of care can be determined (e.g. the operator of a damaging hardware component), while a more distant contributor acting in breach of duty is not held liable, strict liability may result in an incentive for lower levels of care for the distant parties” (Zech 2021, 7). Therefore, the typical effect of the strict liability scheme, i.e. the internalisation of the costs (of accidents), is undermined as it can be too onerous for the victim to identify the perpetrator(s) and the causal link to file a lawsuit. If the victim is disincentivised to claim compensation, while perpetrators benefit from areas of impunity, then tort liability rules do not function properly.']

[(0, 11)]

3cabf7f9522dc2861d5380c6de332c9dd7347e735b863924503f7beab77f94dd

AI production will be diffused and unbundled across many different companies along the supply chain. This blurs clear understanding of “manufacturers” and “developers.”

Fenwick ’22 [Mark; Professor of International Business Law at the Faculty of Law @ Kyushu University; Stefan Wrbka; Professor of Business Law @ University of Applied Sciences for Management and Communication; “AI and Legal Personhood” in The Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence: Global Perspectives on Law and Ethics, Ch. 20]

it is important to future-proof’ regulatory choice there is an ongoing trend towards shift in control to AI A second trend will be unbundling AI systems will adopt a non-integrated approach that allows intermediaries in the supply chain including retailers to decide what software products are combined with other software the distinction between developers manufacturer s and operator s seems likely to be complicated roles become blurred there will be no single developer unbundling may complicate any attempt to identify the liable party

it is important to acknowledge two trends in near-future deployment of AI it is important to be cognizant of near-future trends to ‘ future-proof’ regulatory choice there is an ongoing trend towards shift in control from the operator-user of a technology to the AI system developer autonomous vehicles will be controlled not by a human driver, but by an autonomous machine A second trend will be unbundling or modularization o f au tonomous AI AI systems will increasingly adopt a modularized non-integrated approach that allows manufacturer -producers as well as other intermediaries in the supply chain including AI system developers and retailers to decide what software products are combined with which hardware and other software products benefits of unbundling disruptive technology outweigh the performance benefits that come from a fully integrated solution the relatively simple distinction between AI system developers , manufacturer -producer s and operator - s seems likely to be complicated by modularization Settled defined roles seem likely to become blurred as new, more complex configurations emerge a simple distinction between the manufacturer-producer and the AI system developer is likely to become more complicated A number of entities are already involved in a single piece of software there will be no single AI system developer proliferation and increased sophistication of AI seems likely to further increase the number of actors involved in development and deployment This complexity is further exacerbated by cross-border relationships and complex licensing modularization of AI become relevant for any discussion of liability unbundling may complicate any attempt to identify the liable party .

near-future ‘ future-proof’ regulatory choice autonomous machine unbundling modularization modularized non-integrated manufacturer intermediaries in the supply chain AI developers unbundling simple distinction complicated by modularization blurred manufacturer-producer complicated already involved sophistication cross-border relationships unbundling any attempt identify the liable party .

['Having introduced these distinctions, it is also important to acknowledge two trends in the current and near-future deployment of AI technologies, based on the above distinctions. Given the speed and scope of technological developments in this context (notably the proliferation of autonomous AI systems), it is important to be cognizant of near-future trends, as well as the current state of technology, in order to ‘future-proof’ any regulatory choice that is made now. These two trends seem plausible as AI systems become more sophisticated.', 'First, there is an ongoing and general trend towards deploying AI in more and more ‘high-risk’ situations and a corresponding shift in control from the operator-user of a technology to the AI system developer. Take the example of autonomous vehicles. In contrast to non-autonomous cars, autonomous vehicles will be controlled, not by a human driver, but by an autonomous machine that is ultimately controlled by the AI system.', 'A second trend will be the unbundling or modularization of autonomous AI systems. As with technological innovation in other contexts, AI systems will increasingly adopt a modularized – non-integrated – approach that allows manufacturer-producers, as well as other intermediaries in the supply chain (including AI system developers and, possibly also, retailers), to decide what software products are combined with which hardware and other software products.', 'This type of technological development and modularization is famously associated with Clayton Christensen in The Innovator’s Solution, where he suggests that, over time, the benefits of unbundling the production and deployment of disruptive technology products outweigh the performance benefits that come from a manufacturer offering a fully integrated solution.6 A simple example is provided by smartphones. When smartphones were first launched, the convenience and performance benefits for end users associated with a fully integrated ecosystem (offered by Apple) made integration a better solution. However, over time as modularized solutions offered a ‘good enough’ user experience, the market (and consumer preferences) have tended to switch towards unbundled solutions like Android, which can be deployed in a variety of different forms with diverse hardware from different manufacturers.', 'In this way, the relatively simple distinction that once existed between AI system developers, manufacturer-producers and operator-users introduced above seems likely to be complicated by this trend towards modularization. Settled and defined roles and identities seem likely to become blurred as new, more complex configurations emerge. For example, a relatively simple distinction between the manufacturer-producer – the car company, to take the example of autonomous vehicles – and the AI system developer is likely to become more complicated. A number of entities are already involved in the production of a single piece of software – there will be no single AI system developer – and the proliferation and increased sophistication of AI seems likely to further increase the number of actors involved in the development and deployment of the different aspects of autonomous systems.', 'This complexity is further exacerbated by cross-border relationships and complex licensing and other legal agreements that will inevitably define this space. In short, this process of modularization of AI systems will, inevitably, become relevant for any discussion of liability, and unbundling in a specific case may complicate any attempt to identify the liable party.']

[(0, 11)]

16e95160296fc5ec2bec62f6005b894781542e382f6760d717650b80399975d0

Thus, any mechanism that requires the consumer to identify the party at fault is fatal for effectiveness and certainty of litigation.

Fenwick ’22 [Mark; Professor of International Business Law at the Faculty of Law @ Kyushu University; Stefan Wrbka; Professor of Business Law @ University of Applied Sciences for Management and Communication; “AI and Legal Personhood” in The Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence: Global Perspectives on Law and Ethics, Ch. 20]

approaches beyond revision of the PLD might be necessary from a certainty perspective how can the injured identify the liable party uncertainty and transaction costs to plaintiff would mitigate against utility of any liability scheme and have a fatal impact on effectiveness Rather than a scheme that produces greater legal obscurity one solution might focus on the AI

it remains interesting to see how policymakers will proceed with approaches that go beyond a revision of the PLD which in light of the challenges it poses in the context of AI systems, might be necessary from a legal certainty perspective one vital question remains: how can the injured party identify the liable party , be it the producer , developer , designer , deployer , owner or user of an AI system While all approaches aim to find suitable answers, one has to question if applying those systems in practice is as easy as it seems. identifying the liable person poses disproportionate difficulties for the injured party revisiting personhood might be an option in cases in which ‘identifying the optimal entry point for litigation is difficult’ uncertainty surrounding the key concept of deployer and transaction costs to plaintiff s of identifying the deployer would mitigate against the utility of any liability scheme and might have a fatal impact on its effectiveness . there are, at least, three legal entities involved, potentially located across the globe all interacting with a single end user Rather than formally creating a scheme that merely produces greater legal obscurity , one solution might be to focus on the AI system and attribute legal personality to it

revision necessary certainty liable party , producer developer designer deployer aim in practice easy as it seems. disproportionate difficulties difficult’ uncertainty transaction costs identifying the deployer utility of any liability scheme fatal impact on its effectiveness across the globe merely produces greater legal obscurity , focus on the AI system

['In any event, it remains interesting to see how policymakers will proceed with approaches that go beyond a revision – or at least a reinterpretation – of the PLD, which, in light of the challenges it poses in the context of AI systems, might be necessary.69 Nevertheless, from a legal certainty perspective, one vital question remains: how can the injured party identify the liable party, be it the producer, developer, designer, deployer, owner or user of an AI system? While all approaches highlighted in this section aim to find suitable answers, one has to question if applying those systems in practice is as easy as it seems.', 'At the very least, there are certain scenarios in which identifying the liable person poses disproportionate difficulties for the injured party. The Bertolini Report, for example, concludes that under the RMA, there is, in principle, no generalized need to give AI systems legal personhood. At the same time, however, the report admits that revisiting the legal personhood discussion might be an option in cases in which ‘identifying the optimal entry point for litigation is difficult’.70 The uncertainty surrounding the key concept of deployer and the transaction costs to plaintiffs of identifying the deployer would certainly mitigate against the utility of any liability scheme and potentially might have a fatal impact on its effectiveness.', 'A second related difficulty concerns what we might call complexity and distance, and is suggested by the kind of regulatory model proposed by the Parliament, which includes a distinction between a ‘developer’, a ‘deployer’ and a ‘user’ of AI. In effect, there are, at least, three legal entities involved, potentially located across the globe, and all interacting with a single end user. Rather than formally creating a scheme that merely produces greater legal obscurity, one solution might be to focus on the AI system itself and attribute legal personality to it, therefore mandating a local, concrete and tangible entity.']

[(0, 11)]

d076f1ece206ffa5670df020a1c764020934f19754fa2c9bbc05e14b86ffea36

Current law strictly binds principals – users of contract-negotiating AI – to the terms of those contracts.

Chopra ’11 [Samir; Professor of Philosophy @ Brooklyn College; Laurence White; Lawyer and Policymaker specializing in Law and Technology and Financial Markets Regulation; University of Michigan Press, “Artificial Agents and Contracts” in A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents, Ch. 2]

Most current responses treat agents as tools all actions are attributed to principal Such strict liability may not be fair to operators who do not “ anticipate contractual behavior An obvious example is software bugs In realistic settings involving medium-complexity agents the principal cannot have intention wherever there is discretion on the agent there is possibility of communicating something the principal would not have uttered

Most current responses to electronic contracting including legislative texts such as the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act treat artificial agents as mere tools of principals all actions of artificial agents are attributed to the agent’s principal contracts through an artificial agent always bind the principal This is a stricter liability principle than applies to agents and principals Such a strict liability principle may not be fair to those operators and users who do not “ anticipate contractual behavior of the agent and cannot be said to be assenting to every contract An obvious example is where design flaws or software bugs cause the agent to malfunction the “mere tool” approach appears commonsensical the approach deploys an untenable legal fiction the “mere tool” approach treat artificial agents as a mere “means of communication” In realistic settings involving medium-complexity agents the principal cannot be said to have a preexisting “ intention ” in respect of a particular contract the principal has knowledge only of the rules the artificial agent applies the principal might not even be aware of prices In the case of a corporate principal the artificial agent is itself the means by which the principal’s intention with respect to particular users is constituted wherever there is discretion on the part of the agent there is the possibility of communicating something on behalf of the principal, which had the principal had the opportunity to review the communication, would not have been uttered it appears unfair to bind the principal to a contract to which the user does not believe the principal would assent

including tools attributed to the agent’s principal always bind the principal stricter liability principle strict liability anticipate contractual behavior of the agent commonsensical untenable realistic settings intention itself means constituted does not believe the principal would assent

['Most current responses to the problem of electronic contracting, including legislative texts such as the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act17 (UCITA), treat artificial agents as mere tools or means of communication of their principals. On this approach, all actions of artificial agents are attributed to the agent’s principal (whether an operator or a user), whether or not they are intended, predicted, or mistaken; contracts entered into through an artificial agent always bind the principal, simply because all acts of the artificial agent are treated as acts of the principal (Lerouge 2000; Weitzenboeck 2001). This is a stricter liability principle than applies to human agents and their principals, for whom the doctrine of authority limits those actions for which the principal is required to take responsibility. Such a strict liability principle may not be fair to those operators and users who do not “anticipate the contractual behavior of the agent in all possible circumstances” and cannot reasonably be said to be assenting to every contract entered into by the agent (Sartor 2002; Sartor 2009). An obvious example where such a rule could be unfair is the case where design flaws or software bugs in the artificial agent cause the agent to malfunction through no fault of the user.', 'Extensive legal change would not be required in order to implement the “mere tool” approach; at first sight it even appears commonsensical and appeals to intuitions about the limited capacity of some artificial agents to act autonomously (just how limited this capacity is taken to be is evident in the fact this liability principle would be the same as that which applies to owners of autos [Lerouge 2000; Andrade et al. 2007]). However, the approach deploys an unsatisfactory and ultimately untenable legal fiction; it does not lead to satisfactory results in all cases.', 'Fundamentally, the “mere tool” approach stretches credulity by insisting on treating artificial agents as a mere “means of communication” of the principal. In many realistic settings involving medium-complexity agents, such as modern shopping websites, the principal cannot be said to have a preexisting “intention” in respect of a particular contract that is “communicated” to the user. Most likely, in the case of a human principal, the principal has knowledge only of the rules the artificial agent applies. If the agent’s price list is downloaded from another source or determined by reference to prices quoted by a third party or at a reference market, the principal might not even be aware of the prices of goods or services for sale. In the case of a corporate principal, the human agents of the corporation might rely on the artificial agent itself to know the applicable prices and terms. In such a setting, the artificial agent, far from being a “mere tool of communication” of the principal, is itself the means by which the principal’s intention with respect to particular users is constituted. Furthermore, wherever there is discretion on the part of the agent, there is the possibility of communicating something on behalf of the principal, which, had the principal had the opportunity to review the communication, would not have been uttered. In some circumstances, it should be obvious to a user an artificial agent is acting in a faulty manner in making an offer to enter a particular contract. Intuitively, it appears unfair to bind the principal to a contract to which the user does not believe the principal would assent, were she to learn of it. Treating the artificial agent as a “mere tool of communication” in such a setting simply does not capture the essence of the transaction involved.18']

[(0, 10)]

69dcfedb4f727a728d328394fc9500843379e35c4630083e281d59067930f256

Reallocation of liability captures upsides of autonomous contracting while avoiding downsides – that creates effective markets.

Benaich ’21 [Yasmine; October 2021; LLB @ Queen Mary University of Laws; PhD Thesis at the University of Warwick, “‘Hello, World!’: Towards a New Era of Algorithmic Contracting?”; ]

Algorithms as Tools as technologies grow evermore capable algorithms acquir discretion algorithmic contracts achieve contractual efficiency it appears logical to move from mere tool’ assumption this legal update is warranted only then will parties feel ‘ safe’ the ‘role’ of algorithms accounted for and they will be protected in the case where ‘ things go wrong’ agency law appears warranted algorithms have their own ‘ thought- processes’ and draw their own connections this warrant response that allocates liability in the case of algorithms departing from authorising parties’ intentions Should protection be granted the future of contracting will be less nuanced As advanced’ algorithmic contracts entail greater automation legal considerations gain relevance

Algorithms as Mere Tools Assumption contract law assumes algorithms are mere tools that can automate transactions154 as technologies grow evermore capable algorithms acquir responsibility and discretion in contractual decision-making In smart contracts algorithms can ‘ initiate’ the agreement leading to possibility of devices capable of interacting and concluding economic transactions even if not initially planned or agreed by the owner algorithmic contracts may allow parties to achieve improved future contractual efficiency through code-enabled automation As the role of algorithms seems poised to evolve to an agent of the parties it appears logical to move away from this ‘ mere tool’ assumption too. from a legal perspective this would suggest some legal update to account for the more ambitious role of algorithms in the process is warranted only then will parties feel ‘ safe’ the ‘role’ of algorithms in the process accounted for , and that they will be protected in the case where ‘ things go wrong’ use of agency law to achieve such an objective appears warranted it is important to recognise the company employing them cannot necessarily fully understand nor anticipate their actions algorithms seemingly have their own ‘ thought- processes’ and are capable of draw ing their own connections this would warrant an appropriate legal response that allocates liability accordingly in the case of algorithms departing from their authorising parties’ intentions agency law could provide relief as long as contract law relies on mere tools assumption or assumes parties can foresee every outcome enforceability and liability issues will remain the possibility of fraud or illegal behaviour through algorithmic means will not be prevented enough through a fitting legal framework parties will remain vulnerable Should issues be considered appropriately and protection be granted to parties in the case where things ‘go wrong’ the promise of algorithmic contracts as the future of contracting will be less nuanced As more ‘ advanced’ forms of algorithmic contracts smart self-driving contracts entail greater levels of automation than afforded these legal considerations gain in relevance .

Mere Tools Assumption automate evermore smart contracts initiate’ the agreement contractual efficiency agent of the parties away mere tool’ warranted only then safe’ accounted for , protected things go wrong’ agency law anticipate thought- processes’ own connections liability agency law could provide relief remain fraud prevented enough vulnerable future of contracting less nuanced smart self-driving contracts gain in relevance .

['3.1 Algorithms as Mere Tools Assumption', 'As regards the first assumption, it emerges that contract law currently assumes that algorithms are mere tools that can automate transactions154. But as technologies grow evermore capable, we seem to be moving beyond this155. This is especially relevant in light of the possibility of algorithms acquiring more responsibility and discretion in the contractual decision-making: In the case of smart contracts, algorithms can ‘initiate’ the agreement upon fulfilment of certain conditions, leading even to the possibility of devices capable of interacting with one another and concluding economic transactions even if those were not initially planned or agreed by the owner156. Surden himself noted that algorithmic contracts may allow parties to achieve improved future contractual efficiency through code-enabled automation, which could enable some form of computer-to-computer contracting in which the computers would act as agents of their respective human parties157. Similarly, in the self-driving contract realm, AI-led algorithms could exercise discretion in determining the best contract terms to achieve a broad contractual objective158.', 'As the role of algorithms seems poised to evolve within the algorithmic contracting realm to that more akin to that of an agent of the parties, contracting on their behalf, it appears logical to move away from this ‘mere tool’ assumption too.', 'While interesting again from the perspective of commercial parties wishing to derive benefits of computer code within their contracting practices, from a legal perspective, this move away from the ‘mere tools’ assumption would suggest that some form of legal update to account for the more ambitious role of algorithms in the process is warranted. Arguably, only then will parties feel ‘safe’ that the ‘role’ of algorithms in the process accounted for, and that they will be protected in the case where ‘things go wrong’: the use of agency law to achieve such an objective appears warranted, as will be discussed more extensively in Chapter 7 as solutions are proposed to address legal challenges arising out of algorithmic contract practices.', '3.2 Possibility to Foresee all Outcomes Assumption', 'While recognising that algorithms may be more than ‘mere tools’ is indeed key, it is similarly important to recognise that the company or party employing them cannot necessarily fully understand nor anticipate their actions. In light of the discussion held earlier in relation to ‘Franken-Algorithms’ and the fact that algorithms seemingly have their own ‘thought- processes’ and are capable of drawing their own connections, this is indeed an important consideration that would also warrant an appropriate legal response that allocates liability accordingly in the case of algorithms departing from their authorising parties’ intentions. Again, agency law could provide relief in accounting for this possibility, as will be explained in Chapter 7.', 'Overall, as long as contract law relies on mere tools assumption or assumes that parties can foresee every possible outcome, enforceability and liability issues will remain, as the possibility of fraud or otherwise illegal behaviour through algorithmic means will not be prevented enough through a fitting legal framework, and parties will remain vulnerable to deal with issues resulting from the seeming interpretive discretion of algorithms. Should such issues be considered appropriately by a fitting legal response instead, and protection be granted to parties in the case where things ‘go wrong’, the promise of algorithmic contracts as the future of contracting will be less nuanced.', '4. Conclusion', 'This chapter laid out strong commercial advantages to using algorithmic contracts, as they may allow to automate the operation of the agreement, streamline contract drafting and allow to use data analytics to derive business intelligence. It also outlined how their peculiar code-based nature raises some interesting, yet non-negligible challenges that seem to restrict their applicability to very specific settings such as deterministic processing of payments, refunds or orders, and in financial and insurance transactions which often follow the conditional and precise logic required for computer programming and processing.', 'The inherent limitations of computer code which cannot accommodate ambiguity or openness impact on contract flexibility, and seem to limit the possibility to scale algorithmic contracts onto more ambitious endeavours for now. More importantly, the ability of code to bring its own meaning to terms raises some more serious legal considerations that will require the law to update its stance on the agency of algorithms. As more ‘advanced’ forms of algorithmic contracts (i.e. smart and self-driving contracts) entail even greater levels of automation than afforded in this more ‘basic’ algorithmic contracting realm, these legal considerations gain in relevance.']

[(0, 11)]

ca60613704068ec9fdf5e4c789323862e0cd6bbaf1ab35905e79bd11ac359894

Civil duties for AI enable efficient apportioning of liability. Insurance ensures adequate compensation for injured parties.

Nowik ’21 [Pawel; Chair of the Department of Labor and Social Insurance Law Faculty of Law, Canon Law and Administration @ John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin; Computer Law & Security Review, “Electronic Personhood for Artificial Intelligence in the Workplace,” vol. 42; AS]

the main issues is apportioning liability Developers providers administrators owners and users interact in complex ways simplification is necessary to compensation party could direct claim against tec given fictitious personhood and interact with a single entity functional personhood could avoid expensive court proceedings entity would rely on insurance structure could allow for redistribution by limiting profits to the party responsible or bringing redistribution of assets that make up the entity This would ensur liquidity and solvency in claims it is difficult to consider action of AI as the will of a legal entity to hold programmers accountable may slow innovation

One of the main issues when discussing liability for damages resulting from the use of advanced technologies is the difficulty of apportioning liability among the many parties who collaborate Developers providers of software and other services including administrators and providers of data and infrastructure owners and users must interact in complex ways sharing of responsibility due to overlapping alternative responsibility systems, can be complicated The sense of simplification is necessary to ensure compensation for injured parties is sufficiently easy alternative would be to create a fictitious entity in which all the parties would be engaged to participate and then contribute financially The injured party could direct his claim against a fictitious entity a tec hnological application given fictitious legal personhood and thus interact with a single , clearly defined entity The complexity of the digital and algorithmic management environment in which the technology application operates has made it difficult to determine what exactly caused the damage and who is responsible for it and on what basis is responsible. A functional concept of electronic personhood could lead to avoid ing troublesome and expensive court proceedings . The electronic entity would ensure compensation and solvency by rely ing on a comprehensive insurance system the organisational structure of the entity could allow for the redistribution of said costs between the various entities that contributed to its creation by limiting the distribution of profits to the party responsible for the defective part , or indirectly by bringing about a redistribution of the shares and assets that make up the entity itself. Giving a technology an electronic personality could also enable the distribution of financial flows generated by its operation. This could have many positive implications related to the issue of liability the distribution of assets would be the element that, would allow the technological application to "work out its assets", ensur ing its liquidity and solvency in the event of compensation claims it is increasingly difficult to consider the action of AI as a manifestation of the will of a legal entity without legal personality, and it is challenging to consider AI as a separate legal entity that exists independently of the legal entity units without legal personality to hold programmers users of autonomous systems accountable for their actions may slow down innovation

liability advanced technologies apportioning liability collaborate Developers providers administrators infrastructure users interact complex ways complicated simplification compensation sufficiently easy fictitious entity financially injured party tec hnological application legal personhood single clearly defined complexity difficult responsible functional concept avoid ing expensive ensure compensation solvency insurance system redistribution creation profits defective part indirectly redistribution electronic personality financial flows positive implications liability technological application liquidity solvency increasingly difficult AI will legal entity challenging separate legal entity independently without legal personality programmers users slow down innovation

['One of the main issues when discussing liability for damages resulting from the use of advanced technologies is the difficulty of apportioning liability among the many parties who collaborate to create and operate a given application or service. Developers of devices, providers of software and other services – including administrators and providers of data and infrastructure – owners and users - professional or not – must interact with each other in complex ways when implementing and using a device. The sharing of responsibility, also due to overlapping alternative responsibility systems, can be most complicated. The sense of simplification is evident and necessary to ensure that compensation for injured parties is sufficiently easy. In theory, one alternative would be to create a fictitious entity in which all – or some – of the parties mentioned above would be engaged to participate and then contribute financially (Hildebrandt,\xa02020). The injured party could direct his claim against a fictitious entity – a technological application given fictitious legal personhood – and thus interact with a single, clearly defined entity. The complexity of the digital and algorithmic management environment in which the technology application operates has made it difficult to determine what exactly caused the damage and who – among the many actors involved – is responsible for it and on what basis is responsible. A functional concept of electronic personhood could lead to avoiding troublesome and expensive court proceedings. The electronic entity would ensure compensation and\xa0solvency\xa0by relying on a comprehensive insurance system.', 'Ideally, the\xa0organisational structure\xa0of the entity could allow for the redistribution of said costs between the various entities that contributed to its creation, either directly, by limiting the\xa0distribution of profits\xa0to the party responsible for the defective part, or indirectly, by bringing about a redistribution of the shares and assets that make up the entity itself. Giving a technology an electronic personality could also enable the distribution of financial flows generated by its operation. This, in turn, could have many positive implications, directly or indirectly related to the issue of liability. First, and most importantly, the distribution of assets would be the element that, once the entity has been created and granted an initial autonomous patrimony, would allow the technological application to "work out its assets", ensuring its liquidity and solvency in the event of compensation claims.', 'Currently, AI is usually, in the material sense, a component of an enterprise – a person (as long as it is run as a sole proprietorship), partners (in case of a partnership), and a company (which is a legal person). As a rule, it is a reactive AI, that is, autonomous only to a certain extent and deprived of self-awareness. In such cases, it is difficult to talk about the legitimacy of providing them with the identity of a legal entity because their perception of rights and obligations is only the result of more or less successful programming. Therefore, the creators and owners of AI understood in this way also become owners of the creation of such machines. In other words, designers and users are directly responsible for the actions that the AI takes. The problem with the legal character of the rapidly evolving AI is related to the fact that it is increasingly difficult to consider the action of AI as a manifestation of the will (representations) of a legal entity or an organizational unit without legal personality, and it is challenging to consider AI as a separate legal entity that exists independently of the legal entity or organizational units without legal personality(Hildebrandt,\xa02020).', 'As a result of the specificity of the AI, suggestions are put forward for the direct liability of specific systems (Hage,\xa02017). According to this line of thinking, there are no fundamental arguments for which autonomous systems should not be held liable for their actions (Bryson\xa0et\xa0al., 2017). However, the question remains whether it is necessary or advisable to introduce such liability (at least at this stage). Finally, this also raises ethical issues. Perhaps it would be more useful to hold programmers or users of autonomous systems accountable for their actions. However, this may slow down innovation. To strike a balance, it is necessary to search for answers to such questions as, “What are the objectives of the development of AI?” and “How effective will it be?” It is also difficult to escape the question of the legal nature, complexity, and multidimensionality of AI. The question of AI has been occupying humanity, and there is still no clear and universally accepted definition of this concept.']

[(0, 9)]

4f4040fa3e29923f7b2ba4790d52bc079a869594f08b955fdefe85f00f953afe

Only AI personhood can simplify underlying relationships. Alternatives are inefficient and force consumers to deal with a network of contracts.

Novelli ’22 [Claudio; Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Centre for Digital Ethics, Department of Legal Studies @ University of Bologna; AI & Society, “Legal Personhood for the Integration of AI Systems in the Social Context: A Study Hypothesis,” p. 1-13]

personhood is an instrument for allocating legal positions justified b y minimisation of transaction costs , efficient coordination and opportunity to differentiate liability personhood simplifies underlying relationships through a legal addressee rather than a network of contracts The effect is to stimulate growth of an industry treating AIs as persons hold them directly liable Having assets would limit liability and asset segregation hence risk mitigation that informs economic activities personhood spread internalisation costs

more than a property-based approach I would subscribe a functionalist one personhood status is mainly an instrument for allocating legal positions a person is only a point of imputation of legal positions the question to be asked is: are there practical advantages to creating a detached point of imputation of legal positions ? conferral of personhood on corporations is justified b y minimisation of transaction costs , efficient coordination of individuals and the opportunity to differentiate liability , risk and tax treatment legal personhood simplifies underlying relationships between members and with external parties through a n appropriate legal addressee rather than a network of contracts personhood of corporations, and thus partitioning of assets to secure both members and creditors historically produced growth similar gains can be realised through personhood of AIs simplification efficient distribution of externalities protection of injured parties and having such artificial agents being more self-sufficient in activity The side effect is to stimulate growth of an innovative profitable industry some externalities produced by AIs can be addressed through the rules of tort law without depriving AIs of the status of ‘things’ traditional solutions do not lead to efficient results for more problematic, situations e.g. unpredictable accidents comparative advantage of treating AIs as persons can be to hold them directly liable Sanctions for civil wrongdoings are typically pecuniary and can be claimed if there is an asset assigned to the artificial agent Having assets would allow the limit a tion of liability and asset segregation hence risk mitigation that informs the organisation of economic and collective activities personhood will spread internalisation costs over several stakeholders while segregating their individual assets

functionalist one allocating legal positions imputation of legal positions imputation legal positions ? minimisation transaction costs efficient coordination differentiate liability underlying relationships between members and with external parties legal addressee network of contracts both members and creditors similar simplification distribution of externalities protection self-sufficient stimulate growth innovative tort law ‘things’ efficient results unpredictable comparative advantage directly liable limit a tion of liability asset segregation risk mitigation informs economic collective activities several stakeholders individual assets

['However, more than a property-based approach I would subscribe a functionalist one, i.e. personhood status is mainly an instrument for allocating legal positions. Contrary to a meaning of personhood that ends up being co-extensive with the concept of ‘human being’ or with that of ‘intentional subject’, from a functional-legalistic perspective a person is only a point of imputation of legal positions. Then the question to be asked is: are there any practical advantages to creating a detached point of imputation of legal positions to serve an artificial agent? This approach has characterised doctrinal reflection on the conferral of legal personhood on corporations too, which is mainly justified by the minimisation of transaction costs, efficient coordination of several individuals and the opportunity to differentiate liability, risk and tax treatment (Freund 2000). Such legal personhood also simplifies underlying relationships, both between members and with external parties (e.g. creditors), through an appropriate legal addressee rather than through a network of contracts. Finally, one thesis held in doctrine is that the legal personhood of corporations, and thus the partitioning of assets to secure both members and creditors, has historically produced stimuli for economic growth (Hansmann et al. 2003).', 'I believe that similar functional gains can be realised through the legal personhood of the AIs: legal simplification, transparency, efficient distribution of externalities produced by AIs, better protection of injured parties and the benefit to society of having such artificial agents being more self-sufficient in activity. The side effect is to stimulate the growth of such an innovative and profitable industry.', 'Although some of the externalities produced by an AIs can be addressed through the rules of tort law without necessarily depriving AIs of the status of ‘things’, traditional solutions do not lead to efficient results for other, more problematic, situations: e.g. unpredictable accidents. The comparative advantage of treating AIs as persons can then be to hold them directly liable. Let us see how.', "Sanctions for civil wrongdoings are typically pecuniary and accordingly the status of personhood under civil law can be sensibly claimed only if there is an asset assigned to the artificial agent. Thus, the hypothesis to be contemplated assumes that an AIs has its own assets over which victims and creditors will be able to exercise their right to compensation in the event of wrongdoing. Having an artificial agent's own assets would allow the limitation of liability and asset segregation—hence risk mitigation—that frequently informs the organisation of economic and collective activities in the form of juridical persons. In this way, depending on how the status of legal personhood is designed, it will be possible to spread internalisation costs over several stakeholders while segregating their individual assets, with the associated rewards in terms of economic incentives for production and innovation."]

[(0, 11)]

7e00dfdd306ba7abff0f9775492649ec9f7c8fe5652d077a68cbcf70790c53a2

The pace of innovation is stagnant across the economy. Only AI can deal with rising complexity and synthesize enough data fast enough to get off the innovation plateau – particularly in disease treatment.

Ford ’21 [Martin; BSE in Computer Engineering @ University of Michigan, MBA @ UCLA Anderson School of Management; Basic Books, “AI as the New Electricity” in Rule of the Robots: How Artificial Intelligence Will Transform Everything, Ch. 2]

it is given that innovation is exponential pace of innovation in transportation, energy and agriculture might be stagnant stagnation in new ideas is real Stanford and MIT found productivity declined efficiency falls by half state of the art requires assimilation of knowledge innovation demands larger teams coordinating is difficult a i may prove to be powerful to escape our plateau in terms of prosperity and ability to address challenges nothing is more vital than to innovate most promising may be new compounds Seeking molecules requires complexity Artificial intelligence promise accelerated process Accelerating this reduce pollution and revolutionize medicine

it is taken as a given that innovation is exponential Closer scrutiny reveals the story has been different pace of innovation in areas like transportation, energy , housing physical infrastructure and agriculture might be described as stagnant there is plenty of evidence to suggest broad-based stagnation in the generation of new ideas is quite real An academic paper from Stanford and MIT found research productivity has sharply declined efficiency with which American researchers generate innovations falls by half every 13 years ideas are getting harder to find this extends even to doubling of computer chip density before you can push through the research frontier you have to understand the state of the art . In every scientific field, that requires assimilation of vastly more knowledge than previously innovation now demands ever larger teams made up of researchers with highly specialized backgrounds coordinating efforts is inherently more difficult to the extent that the need to navigate increased complexity and an explosion of knowledge is holding back pace of innovation a rtificial i ntelligence may well prove to be the most powerful tool to escape our technological plateau This is the single most important opportunity for AI as it continues to evolve into a ubiquitous utility in terms of sustained prosperity and ability to address both known and unexpected challenges before us nothing is more vital than amplifying collective ability to innovate and conceive new ideas. The most promising near-term application may be new chemical compounds Just as AlphaGo confronts a infinite game space where the number of configurations of Go exceeds the number of atoms in the universe chemical space is for practical purposes, infinite. Seeking useful molecules requires staggering complexity For a chemist sifting alternatives is a labor-intensive process Artificial intelligence offers the promise of a vastly accelerated process useful new chemical substances touches every sphere of innovation Accelerating this process promises high-tensile materials for machines reactive substances in batteries filters that reduce pollution and new drugs with potential to revolutionize medicine . startup s are already using powerful AI-based approaches to generate breakthroughs Delft University design a completely new material b y exclusively relying on a machine learning algorithm without laboratory experiments

given exponential scrutiny pace transportation, energy , housing stagnant evidence generation of new ideas quite real Stanford MIT research productivity efficiency half ideas are getting harder to find frontier understand assimilation of vastly more knowledge ever larger highly specialized complexity explosion of knowledge pace of innovation most powerful tool technological plateau single most important opportunity ubiquitous utility known and unexpected challenges nothing innovate conceive new ideas. chemical compounds AlphaGo infinite game space atoms in the universe useful molecules staggering complexity labor-intensive vastly accelerated process chemical substances every sphere of innovation pollution revolutionize already exclusively without

['Among those who might be described as “technoptimists,” it is taken as a given that we live in an age of startling technological acceleration. The pace of innovation, we are told, is unprecedented and exponential. The most enthusiastic accelerationists—often acolytes of Ray Kurzweil, who codified the idea in his “Law of Accelerating Returns”—are confident that in the next hundred years, we will experience, by historical standards, the equivalent of something “more like 20,000 years of progress.”63', 'Closer scrutiny, however, reveals that while the acceleration has been real, this extraordinary progress has been confined almost exclusively to the information and communications technology arena. The exponential narrative has really been the story of Moore’s Law and the ever more capable software it makes possible. Outside this sector, in the world composed of atoms rather than bits, the story over the past half-century or so has been starkly different. The pace of innovation in areas like transportation, energy, housing, physical public infrastructure and agriculture not only falls far short of exponential, it might be better described as stagnant.', 'If you want to imagine a life defined by relentless innovation, think of someone born in the late 1800s who then lived through the 1950s or 1960s. Such a person would have seen systemic transformations across society on an almost unimaginable scale: infrastructure to deliver clean water and manage sewage in cities; the automobile, the airplane, jet propulsion and then the advent of the space age; electrification and the lighting, radios, televisions, and home appliances it later made possible; antibiotics and mass-produced vaccines; an increase in life expectancy in the United States from less than 50 years to nearly 70. A person born in the 1960s, in contrast, will have witnessed the rise of the personal computer and later the internet, but nearly all the other innovations that had been so utterly transformative in previous decades would have seen at best incremental progress. The difference between the car you drive today and the car that was available in 1950 simply does not compare to the difference between that 1950 automobile and the transportation options in 1890. And the same is true of a myriad of other technologies distributed across virtually every aspect of modern life.', 'The fact that all the remarkable progress in computing and the internet does not, by itself, measure up to the expectation that the kind of broad- based progress seen in earlier decades would continue unabated is captured in Peter Thiel’s famous quip that “we were promised flying cars and instead we got 140 characters.” The argument that we have been living in an age of relative stagnation—even as information technology has continued to accelerate—has been articulated at length by the economists Tyler Cowen, who published his book The Great Stagnation in 2011,64 and Robert Gordon, who sketches out a very pessimistic future for the United States in his 2016 book The Rise and Fall of American Growth.65 A key argument in both books is that the low-hanging fruit of technological innovation had been largely harvested by roughly the 1970s. The result is that we are now in a technological lull defined by a struggle to reach the higher branches of the innovation tree. Cowen is optimistic that we will eventually break free of our technological plateau. Gordon is much less so, suggesting that even the upper branches of the tree are perhaps denuded and that our greatest inventions may be behind us.', 'While I think Gordon is far too pessimistic, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that a broad-based stagnation in the generation of new ideas is quite real. An academic paper published in April 2020 by a team of economists from Stanford and MIT found that, across a variety of industries, research productivity has sharply declined. Their analysis found that the efficiency with which American researchers generate innovations “falls by half every 13 years,” or in other words “just to sustain constant growth in GDP per person, the United States must double the amount of research effort every 13 years to offset the increased difficulty of finding new ideas.”66 “Everywhere we look,” wrote the economists, “we find that ideas, and the exponential growth they imply, are getting harder to find.”67 Notably this extends even to the one area that has continued to generate consistent exponential progress. The researchers found that the “number of researchers required today to achieve the famous doubling of computer chip density” implied by Moore’s Law “is more than 18 times larger than the number required in the early 1970s.”68 One likely explanation for this is that before you can push through the research frontier, you first have to understand the state of the art. In virtually every scientific field, that requires the assimilation of vastly more knowledge than has been the case previously. The result is that innovation now demands ever larger teams made up of researchers with highly specialized backgrounds, and coordinating their efforts is inherently more difficult than would be the case with a smaller group.', 'To be sure, there are many other important factors that might be contributing to the slowdown in innovation. The laws of physics dictate that accessible innovations are not distributed homogeneously across fields. There is, of course, no Moore’s Law for aerospace engineering. In many areas, reaching the next cluster of innovation fruit may require a giant leap. Over- or ineffective government regulation certainly also plays a role, as does the short-termism that now prevails in the corporate world. Long-term investments in R&D are often not compatible with an obsessive focus on quarterly earnings reports or the coupling of short-term stock performance and executive compensation. Still, to the extent that the need to navigate increased complexity and an explosion of knowledge is holding back the pace of innovation, artificial intelligence may well prove to be the most powerful tool we can leverage to escape our technological plateau. This, I think, is the single most important opportunity for AI as it continues to evolve into a ubiquitous utility. In the long run, in terms of our sustained prosperity and our ability to address both the known and unexpected challenges that lie before us, nothing is more vital than amplifying our collective ability to innovate and conceive new ideas.', 'The most promising near-term application of artificial intelligence, and especially deep learning, in scientific research may be in the discovery of new chemical compounds. Just as DeepMind’s AlphaGo system confronts a virtually infinite game space—where the number of possible configurations of the Go board exceeds the number of atoms in the universe—“chemical space,” which encompasses every conceivable molecular arrangement, is likewise, for practical purposes, infinite. Seeking useful molecules within this space requires a multi-dimensional search of staggering complexity. Factors that need to be considered include the three-dimensional size and shape of the molecular structure as well as numerous other relevant parameters like polarity, solubility and toxicity.69 For a chemist or materials scientist, sifting through the alternatives is a labor-intensive process of experimental trial and error. Finding a truly useful new chemical can easily consume much of a career. The lithium-ion batteries that are ubiquitous in our devices and electric cars today, for example, emerged from research that was initiated in the 1970s but produced a technology that could begin to be commercialized only in the 1990s. Artificial intelligence offers the promise of a vastly accelerated process. The search for new molecules is, in many ways, ideally suited to deep learning; algorithms can be trained on the characteristics of molecules known to be useful, or in some cases on the rules that govern molecular configuration and interaction.70', 'At first blush, this may seem like a relatively narrow application. However, the quest to find useful new chemical substances touches virtually every sphere of innovation. Accelerating this process promises innovative high-tensile materials for use in machines and infrastructure, reactive substances to be deployed in better batteries and photoelectric cells, filters or absorbent materials that might reduce pollution and a range of new drugs with the potential to revolutionize medicine.', 'Both university research labs and an expanding number of startup companies have turned to machine learning technology with enthusiasm and are already using powerful AI-based approaches to generate important breakthroughs. In October 2019, scientists at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands announced that they were able to design a completely new material by exclusively relying on a machine learning algorithm, without any need for actual laboratory experiments. The new substance is strong and durable but also super-compressible if a force beyond a certain threshold is exerted on it. This implies that the material can effectively be squeezed into a small fraction of its original volume. According to Miguel Bessa, one of the lead researchers on the project, futuristic materials with these properties might someday mean that “everyday objects such as bicycles, dinner tables and umbrellas could be folded into your pocket.”71']

[(0, 8)]

7b6e39b58db52f95f7a6ddc56dcf1f596fa4d188057bea3bb9641c45cac4cd6a

Patents are comparatively better for innovation. Alternatives lack adequate incentives for the development of inventive AI.

Yanisky-Ravid ’21 [Shlomit; PhD, Professor of Law @ Fordham University School of Law; Regina Jin; PhD, Research Fellow @ Fordham Law CLIP; Michigan State Law Review, “Summoning a New Artificial Intelligence Patent Model: In the Age of Pandemic,” vol. 2021; AS]

patent is not monopoly Patenting AI does not prevent licensing licensees create new invention patent owners work under confidentiality and open-source provides no incentive for profit-driven owners vaccine waiver may not solve because countries lack industrial foundation to manufacture the industry reported without patent 60% of pharmaceuticals would not be developed waive IP rights would disincentivize innovations companies require patent to induce research patent s bar competitors Trade secrets do not provide incentive nor encourage dissemination patent is more incentivizing to innovation stripping rights would make it impossible to recoup cost without benefits scientists feel insufficiently rewarded for labor

some assert AI patents prevent the later comers to use the patented technology since the AI algorithm is fundamental to AI systems, an AI algorithm patent would preempt subsequent applications arising from that algorithm the patent right is not equal to the monopoly in the antitrust sense the patent reflects a balance between innovation and monopolies Patenting AI inventions does not prevent the patent owners from licensing advanced technology licensees create subsequent work to generate a new invention The open-source advocates who support the complete elimination of patent rights may allege that patent protection limits the accessibility of knowledge patent owners regularly work together under the confidentiality agreement and the open-source model provides no incentive for the profit-driven patent owners , like pharmaceutical companies to develop cures vaccine patent waiver may not solve the healthcare problem because developing countries lack the industrial foundation to manufacture vaccines even if the vaccine formulations are provided to them scientists may work for the sense of achievement not economic returns However the pharmaceutical industry reported without patent protection 60% of the new pharmaceuticals would not have be en developed proposal to waive IP rights for vaccines ran into pushbacks from the pharmaceutical industry, who claim the waiver would disincentivize future innovations The pharmaceutical companies would require the patent incentives to induce research and development activities trade secrets may be raised as alternative to patent in the AI context the patent right provides much more incentive to innovate than alternatives the patent right grant s a right to bar competitors entirely from the market Trade secrets do not provide incentive to innovate nor do they encourage the dissemination of knowledge as the patent disclosure offers the patent right is more exclusive encompassing and transparent it is thus more incentivizing to innovation stripping patent rights from a pharmaceutical company would remove incentives and make it almost impossible to recoup the decade-long cost in drug research and development without patent benefits the scientists and researchers feel insufficiently rewarded for their fruits of productive labor

AI patents later comers fundamental preempt not equal monopoly antitrust sense balance AI inventions licensing subsequent work open-source advocates complete elimination limits regularly work together no incentive profit-driven pharmaceutical companies vaccine patent waiver not solve lack industrial foundation manufacture vaccines provided sense of achievement economic returns However without patent protection not have be en developed waive IP rights pushbacks disincentivize future innovations require the patent incentives trade secrets much more incentive bar competitors do not provide dissemination exclusive encompassing transparent more incentivizing innovation patent rights incentives impossible recoup patent benefits insufficiently rewarded fruits productive labor

['Below some potential challenges of the new AI patent track model are laid out and rebutted. First, some may assert that AI patents may prevent the later comers to use the patented technology. 301For example, since the AI algorithm is fundamental to AI systems, an AI algorithm patent would preempt subsequent applications arising from that algorithm. 302We reason that the patent right is not equal to the monopoly in the antitrust sense. 303 Indeed, the patent reflects a balance between the need to encourage innovation and the avoidance of monopolies. 304The demand of incentives to promote new technology may be prioritized in some circumstances, like during the current health crisis when people are dying every day.', 'Patenting AI inventions does not prevent the patent owners from licensing out their advanced technology. 305 The licensees could enjoy the granted privilege to create a subsequent work, such as an application of the AI creativity system to generate a resulting new invention. 306The license could be accommodated to the public interests depending on how urgent and essential the purported use is. 307Recently, some politicians from around the world call for the compulsory patent licensing relating to coronavirus vaccines and treatments in consideration of patent rights that might prevent affordable access to potential cures. 308Most European countries, India, and Canada have already evoked compulsory licensing under which the governments may authorize themselves or third parties to use a patent without the permission of the patent owner. 309However, in the U.S. there is no general right to force compulsory licensing. 310The "march-in rights" under the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act may at most compel licensing of a federally-funded patent rather than a drug or vaccine patent developed by big pharma. 311The best bet in the U.S. to use a pharmaceutical company\'s patent is still through the consent of the patent owner. 312In view of the priority of ensuring access to life-saving medicines during a pandemic, pharmaceutical companies may be willing to compromise their patent rights temporarily. 313For example, Gilead owns the patent of the potential coronavirus drug Remdesivir and its CEO announced that at the time of crisis "the patent is not at the forefront of our mind" and "[w]e will not get into a patent dispute" even considering that China\'s Wuhan Institute of Virology filed a new patent application to use Gilead\'s potential coronavirus cure. 314Gilead emphasized that "it is too early to discuss any compulsory or other types of licensing at this stage" and its priority now is to examine the drug efficacy in clinical trials and to later ramp up the product after confirmed clinical results. 315', 'The open-source advocates who support the complete elimination of patent rights may allege that patent protection of proprietary information limits the accessibility of knowledge. Despite the current call for harmonized research effort from governments, academic institutions, and industry to develop COVID-19 vaccine, the unwillingness to share patentable information may prevent the collaboration. 316 We argue that patent owners regularly work together under the confidentiality agreement and the open-source model provides no incentive for the profit-driven patent owners, like pharmaceutical companies, to develop cures.', 'In the current debate of the vaccine patent waiver, the question is whether a patent waiver (which grants the free accessibility of vaccine formulations) would facilitate the vaccine availabilities in many developing countries. 317As claimed by Harvard Law Professors Terry Fisher and Ruth Okediji, the waiver may not solve the healthcare problem at least in the near future because developing countries lack the industrial foundation to manufacture vaccines even if the vaccine formulations are provided to them. 318', "Some may question whether patent rights do induce the inventive effort since scientists may work for the sense of achievement or personal glory not necessarily in the pursuit of economic returns. 319The degree of the inducement for invention by patent rights varies by fields. 320 An empirical study shows that the manufacturing industry would still have chosen to develop most of their products even if the companies had known the products are not patentable. 321 However, executives in the pharmaceutical industry reported without patent protection 60% of the new pharmaceuticals would not have been developed. The WTO's proposal to temporarily waive IP rights for vaccines ran into pushbacks from the pharmaceutical industry, who claim that the waiver would disincentivize future innovations. 322 The pharmaceutical companies would require the patent incentives to induce the research and development activities. 323", 'Other kinds of IP rights, such as copyright or trade secrets, may be raised as alternative to patent in the AI context. 324We contend that the patent right provides much more incentive to innovate for the AI professionals and investors than the alternatives. 325While the copyright prevents the competitors from copying the codes, the patent right grants a right to bar competitors entirely from the market. 326 Trade secrets, on the other hand, do not provide incentive to innovate, nor do they encourage the dissemination of knowledge as the patent disclosure offers upon the expiration of rights. 327 As the patent right is more exclusive, encompassing, and transparent, it is thus more incentivizing to innovation. 328', 'The incentive offered to the AI industry in the form of patent rights would threaten the human workforce. 329A study published by McKinsey Global Institute suggests that up to 800 million jobs around the world could be under threat from automation in the next twelve years. 330We note that automation, necessitated by the industrial development, is inevitable even without AI. The exponential growth rate of computer performance indicated by Moore\'s law has been continuously accelerating the industrialization speed even before the birth of AI and such trend would keep eliminating human workers who are conducting only routine repetitive work. 331Indeed, the job market created by AI cannot be ignored. The work force may adapt to the expanding AI industry as the McKinsey study indicates "when some tasks are automated, employment in those occupations may not decline but rather workers may perform new tasks" by switching occupations or upgrading skills to accommodate the job market. 332 The employer demand for AI-related roles has more than doubled between 2015 and 2018. 333I t is expected that between 2018 and 2022, AI would create fifty-eight million new jobs around the world. 334', "In the coronavirus pandemic, there is concern that granting a twenty-year patent monopoly to a coronavirus drug would lead to price gouging and hinder the iterative innovation by a second comer who later develops a similar drug. 335 We contend that stripping patent rights from a pharmaceutical company would remove incentives and make it almost impossible to recoup the decade-long cost in drug research and development. Further, without patent benefits, the scientists and researchers may feel insufficiently rewarded for their fruits of productive labor. We notice a patent maximalist's view in support of an extension of patent term for coronavirus cures beyond the current norm of twenty years, yet we do not agree with the elongated patent term--under our proposed AI-specific patent track model, we summon a shorted patent lifetime to balance the incentive with the concern of exclusive rights. 336"]

[(0, 16), (16, 17)]

1cf178d9c467ff8ee3d77b0bebdb51dbdff0aaf0ebc1d923eb1217c885dc638b

Inventive AI is faster, more accurate, and more reliable than humans.

He ’21 [Barry; October 11; China Daily, “Artificial intelligence still fighting for inventor's rights”; https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202110/11/WS61639519a310cdd39bc6e049.html; AS]

robots be inventors innovation comes from AI China is a leader AI inventions are accumulating there is yet to be a legal framework there has been a surge in patent s from AI minds through trial and error number are infinite Expecting a human to pick through while needing sleep limits discovery AI is faster accurate reliable offering exponential growth Countries that adapt patent systems quickest pull ahead in the arms race , as incentives are protected missing innovations is substantial AI is projected to become more potent than people

Can robots be inventors they cannot judges ruled a i cannot have rights as more innovation comes from AI the legal landscape may be forced to adapt China is a world leader in AI and AI inventions that stem from the country are fast accumulating However there is yet to be a strictly confining legal framework there has been a surge in patent application s for ideas born from AI minds through trial and error number of molecules are infinite Expecting a human to pick through and test each chemical candidate while needing to eat sleep and live limits the rate at which discovery can take place. AI is much faster more accurate and reliable AI gives us the possibility to reinvent the way we innovate offering exponential technological growth By denying the rights of AI to their patents problematic issues can arise By allowing humans to own rights individuals may be motivated to claim rights to inventions they did not create Legal frameworks must ensure that ideas can be appropriately catalogued to their respective origins Encouraging a world in which businesses are incentivized to invest in AI systems is important, as it would build motivation invest into systems in which there is confidence that fruits of labor can be protected Countries that adapt their patent systems the quickest may find they pull ahead in the AI arms race , as commercial incentives are protected The risk of missing out on vital innovations is a substantial one Long-term AI is projected to become more potent at researching and creating than people and ensuring we do not miss out on the next eureka moment is more important than ever

inventors cannot judges a i more innovation adapt China AI AI inventions fast accumulating However legal framework surge patent application s AI minds trial and error infinite Expecting human candidate eat sleep live limits discovery AI much faster more accurate reliable AI reinvent innovate exponential technological growth denying patents humans to own rights did not create Legal frameworks respective origins incentivized AI systems build motivation confidence fruits of labor protected adapt quickest pull ahead AI arms race commercial incentives protected vital innovations substantial one Long-term more potent researching creating ensuring eureka moment

["Can robots be inventors? A recent ruling in the United Kingdom's High Court decided, when asked to consider a program written by British inventor Stephen Thaler, they cannot.", 'The patent, for a food container and flashing light, could only be attributed to Thaler because the judges ruled artificial intelligence cannot have rights, and therefore are incapable of ownership.', 'However, rulings in other parts of the world, such as one in Australia, have ruled in favor of artificial beings, and as more innovation comes from AI in the next few years the legal landscape may be forced to adapt.', 'China is a world leader in AI technologies, and AI inventions that stem from the country are fast accumulating. However, there is yet to be a strictly confining legal framework.', 'According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, although first priority is given to the natural entity of the human inventor, there are no obstacles to recognizing AI as the original creator on legal or practical levels. Even if the human behind the AI invention claims credit, there is still room to create a legal subject status for AI.', 'Other schools of thought, such as the dissenting judge Lord Birss in the aforementioned UK Thaler case, state that the fact that no physical inventors can be identified simply means that no human name is attributed to the IPO patent that otherwise should still stand as legally protected.', 'Such flexibility in attitudes is important as AI continues to unleash what many consider to be a new industrial revolution. AI is capable of processing data in capacities far beyond what the human mind can consciously achieve, and work much faster without needing breaks.', 'Since 2013, there has been a surge in patent applications for ideas born from AI minds in a variety of industries. Drug discovery, for example, is one area being turned upside down by machine learning.', 'Traditionally, life-saving medicines are discovered through huge processes of trial and error, and the number of small molecules that could be potentially useful are almost infinite in number. The combinations of possibilities outstrip the total estimated number of atoms in the entire solar system. Expecting a human to pick through and test each chemical candidate while needing to take breaks, eat, sleep, and live a life outside of work further limits the rate at which discovery can take place. AI trained specifically on data covering existing chemicals and biological knowledge is a much faster, more accurate, and reliable way to approach problem.', 'AI, therefore, gives us the possibility to reinvent the very way we invent and innovate things, offering the exciting prospect of exponential technological growth in the coming decades.', 'By denying the rights of AI to their patents, problematic issues can arise. By allowing humans, solely, to own rights, individuals may be motivated to claim rights to inventions they did not create. An AI program cannot stand up for its own intellectual property rights, and so little would stop a human from fraudulently claiming an invention they did not create.', "Legal frameworks must ensure that ideas can be appropriately catalogued to their respective origins, not in the least for posterity's sake.", 'Encouraging a world in which businesses are incentivized to invest in AI systems is important, as it would build motivation to invest into systems in which there is confidence that fruits of labor can be appropriately protected. Countries that adapt their patent systems the quickest may find they pull ahead in the AI arms race, as commercial incentives are protected by well-established law.', 'The risk of missing out on vital innovations for society is a substantial one.', 'Long-term, AI is projected to become more potent at researching and creating than many people, and ensuring that, globally, we do not miss out on the next eureka moment is more important than ever.']

[(0, 6)]

d7d5b761b25675c6d968ad89465d98354b58ad35439fb1a34053d19d5590495d

Automation is inevitable and will create more human jobs.

Yanisky-Ravid ’21 [Shlomit; PhD, Professor of Law @ Fordham University School of Law; Regina Jin; PhD, Research Fellow @ Fordham Law CLIP; Michigan State Law Review, “Summoning a New Artificial Intelligence Patent Model: In the Age of Pandemic,” vol. 2021; AS]

automation is inevitable without AI exponential growth indicated by Moore's law has been accelerating work force may adapt when some are automated employment may not decline but workers perform new tasks by switching occupations or upgrading skills employer demand for AI roles has doubled AI would create fifty-eight million jobs

automation is inevitable even without AI The exponential growth rate of computer performance indicated by Moore's law has been continuously accelerating the industrialization speed even before the birth of AI and such trend would keep eliminating human workers who are conducting only routine repetitive work the job market created by AI cannot be ignored. The work force may adapt to the expanding AI industry when some tasks are automated employment in those occupations may not decline but rather workers may perform new tasks by switching occupations or upgrading skills to accommodate the job market The employer demand for AI -related roles has more than doubled AI would create fifty-eight million new jobs around the world

automation inevitable without AI exponential growth Moore's law continuously accelerating keep eliminating job market may automated new tasks switching occupations employer demand doubled fifty-eight million

['The incentive offered to the AI industry in the form of patent rights would threaten the human workforce. 329A study published by McKinsey Global Institute suggests that up to 800 million jobs around the world could be under threat from automation in the next twelve years. 330We note that automation, necessitated by the industrial development, is inevitable even without AI. The exponential growth rate of computer performance indicated by Moore\'s law has been continuously accelerating the industrialization speed even before the birth of AI and such trend would keep eliminating human workers who are conducting only routine repetitive work. 331Indeed, the job market created by AI cannot be ignored. The work force may adapt to the expanding AI industry as the McKinsey study indicates "when some tasks are automated, employment in those occupations may not decline but rather workers may perform new tasks" by switching occupations or upgrading skills to accommodate the job market. 332 The employer demand for AI-related roles has more than doubled between 2015 and 2018. 333I t is expected that between 2018 and 2022, AI would create fifty-eight million new jobs around the world. 334']

[(0, 16), (16, 17)]

6c53ed1941095a13cccc3eb9497f56dc84176adb47a3b67fba3ecd8ed8522eae

Inventorship status reduces costs and boost productivity.

Afshar ’21 [Mimi; Director @ Intellectual Property Law Clinic, Clinical Assistant Professor @ NCCU School of Law; I’m Not “Human” After All - Can Artificial Intelligence Survive the Inventorship Requirement?; https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3792645; AS]

AI reduced healthcare 50% while improving outcome AI boost productivity allowing AI to be an inventor would incentivize innovation AI’s value would be recognized recognition would encourage inventors they will be assured they can patent results humanity will suffer we won’t have incentives society will miss innovations AI may be better at generating

AI has been evolving exponentially adoption of AI technologies reduced healthcare costs by 50% in pilot testing, while improving patient outcome by over 50% in COVID AI has never been so crucial AI has the potential to boost overall economic productivity significantly AI continues to be at the forefront of technological development legislatures need to embrace AI and be mindful of the effects that AI has on patent laws AI is related to innovation which is governed by patent laws This leads to questions regarding patent inventorship The key question is whether AI can be considered an “ inventor ” of a patent application USPTO rejecting AI as an “ inventor An innovation is on the horizon wherein the advances following AI will transform our lives and the global economy AI should be considered an “ inventor under the patent statutes allowing AI to be listed as an inventor would incentivize innovation as AI’s added value would be more clearly recognized statutory recognition of AI as an inventor would encourage inventors to invest in developing inventive AI systems, as they will be assured they can patent the results It will be accurate about inventorship, maintain the innovation commercialization and disclosure incentives of the patent system, and most promote the development of inventive AI policies should be modified to reflect technological advances and humanity as a whole will suffer as a result, because we won’t have adequate incentives to develop inventive AI and society will miss out on important innovations that AI may be better at generating than a person

AI exponentially adoption healthcare costs 50% patient outcome 50% COVID AI so crucial AI economic productivity AI technological development embrace AI patent laws AI innovation patent laws patent inventorship inventor patent application USPTO inventor innovation transform our lives global economy AI inventor patent statutes incentivize innovation added value clearly recognized inventors invest developing patent the results accurate innovation commercialization disclosure incentives development inventive AI technological advances humanity adequate incentives inventive AI important innovations AI better at generating

['AI has been evolving exponentially, while simultaneously generating excitement about how it has increased prosperity and transformed our lives in multiple ways. The impact of the Industrial and Digital Revolutions has, undoubtedly, been substantial on practically all aspects of society. Our smartphones help us navigate around town, virtual digital assistants such as Alexa and Siri respond to our questions, and social media channels such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter help us remain connected. Furthermore, financial institutions, pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies are all utilizing AI to their advantage and to obtain leverage over their competitors. In fact, adoption of AI technologies is reported to have reduced healthcare costs by 50% in pilot testing, while improving patient outcome by over 50%.2 In particular, in the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, the role of AI has never been so crucial.3 According to new research from the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), AI has the potential to boost overall economic productivity significantly. 4 ', 'Notably, many leaders in the tech field are skeptical about AI, and even some warnings have issued from authorities such as Stephen Hawking, who told the BBC in 2014: “The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race.”5 Dr. Hawking further warned about the perils of artificial intelligence (even though AI ironically gave him a voice). Regardless, AI continues to be at the forefront of technological development. Similar to coping with the changes that the Industrial Revolution brought, legislatures need to embrace AI and be mindful of the challenges and effects that AI has on different laws, in particular patent laws.', 'Further, AI is related to innovation, which in turn is governed by patent laws. This leads to questions regarding the ramifications on patent inventorship in the AI arena. The key question is whether AI can be considered an “inventor” of a patent application. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has provided its answer by clearly rejecting AI as an “inventor.”6 The decision explained that AI cannot meet certain statutory definitions for an inventor or the jurisprudential tests for determining inventorship. The Patent Act does not expressly limit inventorship rights to humans, but it does suggest that each inventor must have a name and be an “individual.”7', 'An innovation is on the horizon wherein the advances following AI will continue to transform our lives, business and the global economy. 8 In exploring this exciting territory, what types of patent law policies will help promote innovation and the progress of science, consistent with the United States (“US”) Constitution?9', 'To answer these issues, this paper focuses on AI and patent laws — mainly, on whether AI should be considered an “inventor” under the patent statutes. Unlike other scholars, I argue here for recognizing AI as the inventor. I further argue that allowing AI to be listed as an inventor would incentivize innovation, as AI’s added value would be more clearly recognized. Furthermore, statutory recognition of AI as an inventor would encourage inventors to invest in developing inventive AI systems, as they will be assured they can patent the results. “It will be accurate about inventorship, maintain the innovation commercialization and disclosure incentives of the patent system, and most promote the development of inventive AI,” said Ryan Abbott, Professor of Law and Health Sciences at the UK’s University of Surrey, who led the Artificial Inventor Project team.10 Accordingly, policies should be modified to reflect technological advances and, as Abbott has predicted, “humanity as a whole will suffer as a result, because we won’t have adequate incentives to develop inventive AI, and society will miss out on important innovations that in some cases, AI may be better at generating than a person.”11']

[(0, 10)]

f6fa71bae6c5c9e1dd557fdf3fe8c2988d6846fe708acce4cb869ad5f4ca832f

AI will out-invent humans, but patentability is key.

Fraser ’16 [Erica; LLM @ University of Edinburgh; SCRIPTed: Journal of Law, Technology and Society, “Computers as Inventors - Legal and Policy Implications of Artificial Intelligence on Patent Law,” vol. 13; AS]

AI will be able to do anything people can, and more computers can independently learn tasks Al enable innovations not possible through human ingenuity due to complexity or cognitive " blind spots these increase productivity efficiency decreasing the cost of innovation patent system is not currently equipped In light of legal uncertainty

AI machines will be able to do anything people can, and more computers can independently learn how to perform tasks mathematical theorems Applying Al to the invention process is expected to enable innovations that would not be possible through human ingenuity alone due to the complexity of the problems or human cognitive " blind spots these technologies have the potential to increase productivity and efficiency increasing the speed and decreasing the cost of innovation computers will inevitably displace human inventors to become the creators of the majority of new innovation the adoption of these technologies have the potential to impact the patent system on a scale and of a nature that it is not currently equipped to accommodate In light of legal uncertainty in the context of rapidly advancing Al technology Al could invent autonomously

AI more independently perform tasks mathematical theorems Al enable innovations not be possible human ingenuity complexity blind spots productivity efficiency speed decreasing cost inevitably displace majority technologies impact scale nature not currently equipped legal uncertainty rapidly advancing Al autonomously

['In light of recent extraordinary progress, we may be on the cusp of a revolution in robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) technology wherein machines will be able to do anything people can, and more.1 Recent successes have demonstrated that computers can independently learn how to perform tasks, prove mathematical theorems, and engage in artistic endeavours such as writing original poetry and music, and painting original works.2', 'There is a nascent but increasing interest in incorporating Al into tools for the computer-generation of inventions. Applying Al to the invention process is expected to enable innovations that would not be possible through human ingenuity alone, whether due to the complexity of the problems or human cognitive "blind spots." 3 Further, these technologies have the potential to increase productivity and efficiency, thereby increasing the speed and decreasing the cost of innovation.4 Some even argue that computers will inevitably displace human inventors to become the creators of the majority of new innovation.5', "Computer involvement in the inventive process falls on a spectrum. 6 At one end, a computer could simply be used as a tool assisting a human inventor without contributing to the conception of an invention. At its most miniscule, this could consist of a spell-checker or simple calculator. Further along, a text generator may be used to fill gaps in patent documents. At the far end of the spectrum, a computer could autonomously generate outputs that would be patentable inventions if otherwise created by a human.' Some tools fall in between; for example, a computer could be used to generate several possible solutions under the guidance of humans who define the problems and select successful solutions. Al may also be incorporated into robotics, adding a physical embodiment with the potential to increase the likelihood that a computer could generate inventions without direct human intervention. 8", 'In response to computer-generated works of art, a discussion of the implications of these works on copyright law is emerging; however, there is comparatively little examination of the repercussions of computer-generated invention on patent law. This discussion is necessary, as the adoption of these technologies have the potential to impact the patent system on a scale and of a nature that it is not currently equipped to accommodate. 9 In particular, the advent of computer-generated invention will raise important questions regarding the legal implications of protecting the results of such systems, specifically, whether the right activity is being rewarded to the right person, to the right extent, and on the right conditions.10', 'In light of legal uncertainty in the context of rapidly advancing Al technology, this article will examine whether the current legal concepts in patent law are appropriate for computer-generated inventions, and what adaptations may be necessary to ensure that the patent system\'s fundamental objectives continue to be met. This discussion will explore two contemporary categories of the state of the art: automated generation of patent texts; and, Al algorithms used in the inventive process. Finally, this article will speculate on possible economic and policy impacts were Al to advance such that computers could invent autonomously "in the wild."']

[(0, 10)]

b978edaff32dd548eeb27816be2bbe35df0a4ea460072c69d60b7e132824987b

Humans fail at disease prevention.

Abbott ’21 [Ryan; Professor of Law and Health Sciences @ University of Surrey; Washburn Law Journal, “Machine Rights and Reasonable Robots, Remarks,” vol. 60; AS]

Al is disruptive From an innovation perspective an Al might predict what each antibody would do what diseases it would treat, what side effects patients would experience researchers could present novel pathogen to an AI and the AI could go through its trillion-antibody library and pick the best one

Al is going to be disruptive From an innovation perspective there is a limited number of antibodies but there are only so many ways you can combine proteins together to get an antibody It is not hard to imagine an Al sequencing every possible antibody An Al simply publishing that data might prevent any future patents on antibody sequences the foundational patents of biological drug patent portfolios an Al might also predict what each antibody would do in the human body what diseases it would treat, what side effects patients would experience researchers could present some novel pathogen to an AI and the AI could go through its trillion-antibody library and pick the best one with which to make a drug

Al disruptive innovation perspective antibodies so many ways antibody every possible future patents foundational patents Al each antibody diseases side effects novel pathogen AI trillion-antibody library best one

['As Al continues improving and gets to the point where it becomes common in some areas to automate innovation, it is going to be really disruptive. Consider the example of medicines that consist of antibodieswhich include all of the best-selling biological drugs, like Humera. These are similar to the antibodies that your body makes naturally to target pathogens. From an innovation perspective, there is a limited number of antibodies-maybe billions or trillions, or even more-but there are only so many ways that you can combine proteins together to get an antibody.43 It is not hard to imagine an Al sequencing every possible antibody.44 An Al simply publishing that data might prevent any future patents on antibody sequences-the foundational patents of biological drug patent portfolios.', "Taking the example further, an Al might also predict what each antibody would do in the human body, what diseases it would treat, what side effects patients would experience, and so forth. Today's Al is already being used to do some of that.45 In the future, researchers could present some novel pathogen, like COVID-19, to an AI and the AI could go through its trillion-antibody library and pick the best one with which to make a drug."]

[(0, 10)]

5745374213f3b29969e10c7f6f6d85d8a6505b77b8ef8d24834766fa5a01563a

AI is faster and cheaper than humans in patenting pharmaceutical innovations.

Abbott ’18 [Ryan; Professor of Law and Health Sciences @ University of Surrey; “Inventive Machines: Rethinking Invention and Patentability” in Intellectual Property and Digital Trade in the Age of Artificial Intelligence and Big Data, CEIPI/ICTSD, vol. 5; AS]

computers change the patent paradigm overwhelm people in inventive activity Take biotech it is not difficult to imagine a powerful computer sequencing every conceivable antibody and publishing those As computers grow faster cheaper they play greater role in the inventive

computers are going to change the entire patent paradigm computers are soon going to overwhelm people in inventive activity Take biotech research on antibodies There are lots of patents However there are only so many ways you can string proteins together to make an antibody it is not difficult to imagine a sufficiently powerful computer sequencing every conceivable antibody and publishing those results As computers grow faster cheaper and sophisticated they are going to play an ever- greater role in the inventive process It will become standard for creative computers to automate invention human researchers will instead use a i to find new compound

computers entire patent paradigm overwhelm people inventive activity biotech antibodies patents However so many ways antibody sufficiently powerful every conceivable faster cheaper sophisticated ever- greater inventive process automate invention a i

['Computational invention has exciting implications beyond inventorship. I think creative computers are going to change the entire patent paradigm in the next 10–20 years.', 'Even more interesting than thinking about how computers and people are competing right now in inventive activity is that computers are very soon going to overwhelm people in inventive activity. Take biotechnology research on antibodies as an example. There are lots of patents on antibody structures. However, there are only so many ways you can string proteins together to make an antibody, and it is not that difficult to imagine a sufficiently powerful computer sequencing every conceivable antibody and publishing those results online. Assuming this would be an anticipatory disclosure, it would prevent anyone from patenting the structure of those antibodies. The computer could not patent the antibody structures itself because it would not know their utility, which is another requirement for patentability. But an inventive machine would have just wiped out an entire field of human research.', 'As computers grow increasingly faster, cheaper, and more sophisticated, they are going to play an ever-greater role in the inventive process. It will become standard for creative computers to automate invention. Someone in the chemical sciences who used to discover new chemical compounds through deductive reasoning and trial and error with teams of human researchers will instead use artificial intelligence to find new compounds. Right now, the hypothetical “person having ordinary skill in the art,” or PHOSITA, is the benchmark we use to judge inventiveness. If the skilled person uses inventive machines, or is an inventive machine, then the benchmark is very high. It is hard to conceive of an invention that would not be obvious to a sufficiently sophisticated computer. That would essentially mean the end of inventive activity. Everything will be obvious.']

[(0, 10)]

f9267d61cb512a0003b40d01da027cb3d9629c4bb7d085c17672e7db3fb9c1c6

The US is falling behind. Chinese patents are catching up.

Hadley ’22 [Greg; June 4; Congressional Editor @ Air Force Magazine; “US Remains Leader in Emerging Technologies, But China Makes Some Gains, Study Finds”; https://www.airforcemag.com/us-remains-leader-in-emerging-technologies-but-china-makes-some-gains-study-finds; AS]

When it comes to a i the U.S. remains leader Analyzing million of patent s U.S have been “ first to file which country had more early filers may indicate which is leading the U.S had the edge however that reversed with China leading China and the U S are approaching parity the U S falling behind U.S surge of patent s it’s gradual With China it’s shorter

When it comes to a i the U.S. remains the leader in innovation according to a new study Analyzing hundreds of million of patent application s U.S . inventors have been “ first to file the authors looked at close emergences then broke down which country had more early patent filers which may indicate which country is leading we found there’s a difference the U.S . typically had the edge however that trend reversed with China leading the majority of the time China and the U S are now approaching parity or in some cases the U S is falling behind U.S surge of patent application s it’s pretty gradual It takes about 20 years before it reaches saturation With China it’s a much shorter time

a i innovation new study hundreds of million patent application s first to file close emergences early patent filers indicate there’s a difference however trend reversed China U S parity U S falling behind surge pretty gradual 20 years China shorter time

['When it comes to key emerging technologies like additive manufacturing, artificial intelligence, and space, the U.S. remains the leader in innovation, according to a new study prepared for the Air Force.', 'Analyzing hundreds of million of patent applications from across the world, the\xa0report from the RAND Corp.\xa0found that in six areas—Additive manufacturing (AM), AI, space, quantum, ceramics, and sensors—where there have been surges in interest over the past few decades, U.S. inventors have typically been “first to file in areas of technological emergence, far more often than other countries,” the report states.', 'That lead in patent applications has held up even against China, which Pentagon and Air Force officials have repeatedly called their\xa0pacing challenge\xa0and\xa0main priority.', 'The report’s authors also looked at technology areas where the U.S. has led the way, only to then be followed by China.', '“The time difference between when this emergence happens in the U.S. and when the emergence happens in China, in these cases, is typically [nine to 10] years,” Richard Silberglitt, one of the study’s authors, told Air Force Magazine.', '“When it’s the other way around, in the very few times that somebody other than the United States is the leader in the first emergence, when it’s China, the United States doesn’t always follow. Sometimes China has an emerging technology and the United States, inventors in the United States don’t care about it, so the United States doesn’t follow. But when the United States does follow China, typically we’re right on top of them within [1.5 to 2.5] years. And within [one to two] years, it’s hard to tell who’s ahead.”', 'The study was commissioned by the Secretary of the Air Force’s office, Silberglitt said, as part of “the big question of, how’s the U.S. doing relative to other countries in technology?”', 'The answer would seem to give some reassurance about the U.S.’s advantages in areas that many\xa0experts\xa0say will be\xa0crucial\xa0to the\xa0future\xa0of\xa0warfare.', 'But Silberglitt noted that the study does contain some insights that require further analysis.', 'For one, the authors looked at instances when the U.S. and China had surges in similar areas within a few years of each other—so-called “close emergences.” It then broke down which country typically had more early patent filers, which “may indicate which country is leading the technological competition in these emergent subclasses,” the study states.', '“For these close emergencies, which it turns out are a tiny percentage of all of the emergences, [two] percent … but in this very, very small case of the U.S. and China emerging at almost the same time, we found that there’s a difference in who has the earliest patents,” Silberglitt said.', 'From 2001 to 2008, the U.S. typically had the edge in filing first, leading 95 percent or more of the time. From 2009 to 2017, however, that trend reversed, with China leading the majority of the time, though not by as wide a margin.', 'While the U.S. remains the technological leader by total number of first emergences, “China and the United States are now approaching parity, or in some cases the United States is falling behind, in areas of close competition,” the report states. Some of that phenomenon could be caused by a pattern Silberglitt and his co-authors have noted.', '“In the U.S., when you see an emergence, a surge of patent applications in a particular area, it’s typically pretty gradual. I mean, it goes up exponentially, but it goes up over a very long time. It takes about 20 years before it reaches saturation,” Silberglitt said. “With China, our experience has been that it’s a much, much shorter time. … So if you have two S curves you’re comparing to each other, and one of them’s more gradual and the other one goes up faster, who’s going to have more early applications?”']

[(0, 10)]

dca0e4464b0bb60ca97df8d4793d36b3ae3960ba3f3db90e91a4229c4a04d865

China will be ahead the US in AI within a decade.

Brian ’22 [Paul; March 13; Freelance Journalist; The National Interest, “The United States Has Fallen Behind China on Artificial Intelligence”; https://nationalinterest.org/blog/techland-when-great-power-competition-meets-digital-world/united-states-has-fallen-behind-china; AS]

China trotted out AI digital currency has been picked up by 140 million the U S is falling behind China wil dominate within a decade American firms are looking abroad NASDAQ Remark Holdings generates revenue in China Only now is the American military stepping away from Chinese drones Economically China leaps ahead

China trotted out new AI and robotics with vital relevance to Washington’s current geopolitical tensions with Beijing digital currency games has already been picked up by 140 million people AI is a driving obsession for China China has quickly eclipsed the U S when it comes to the deployment and use of AI technologies China is doubling down on AI while the U S is falling behind China wil l dominate AI, within a decade or two AI will be key to the future of national power if the U S wants to preserve its values and keep pace with China, it needs to get very serious about AI very fast American -based AI firms are looking abroad for business NASDAQ -listed Remark Holdings currently generates the majority of its revenue in China for the military side the U S is far behind Only now is the American military stepping away from its longtime use of Chinese -manufactured drones and using American-made AI drones Economically letting AI fall to the wayside is also incredibly shortsighted a i could give humans an assist China leaps ahead in this regard the U S keeps on taking half measures

AI robotics vital relevance Beijing digital currency 140 million people driving obsession quickly eclipsed U S AI technologies doubling down AI U S falling behind dominate decade AI future U S values keep pace very serious AI very fast AI firms looking abroad NASDAQ -listed majority China military side U S far behind longtime use American-made Economically incredibly shortsighted assist leaps U S half measures

['The recent Beijing Olympics showcased one particular threat, as China trotted out new artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics technologies with vital relevance to Washington’s current geopolitical tensions with Beijing. From driverless buses to high-speed rail powered by 5G, advanced Chinese technology was featured front and center. Indeed, the digital currency-only games, focused around the e-CNY currency which has already been picked up by some 140 million people, were a little peek into a reality that China has embraced while the West has dithered.', 'As the recent Olympics emphasized, AI is a driving obsession for China. The robot chefs making burgers at Olympic facilities and the smart beds measuring athletes’ vital statistics weren’t just gimmicks for the cameras: they’re a symbol of how China has quickly eclipsed the United States when it comes to the deployment and use of AI technologies.', 'China is doubling down on next-generation tech in general and AI in particular, while the United States is falling behind—to such an extent that the Pentagon’s first chief software officer Nicolas Chaillan resigned last fall in protest over the slow pace of technological transformation in the United States, saying that “we have no competing fighting chance against China in 15 to 20 years.”', 'According to Chaillan, there’s no way Washington is going to catch up to Beijing’s cyber and AI capabilities. Many experts concur—Graham Allison, of the Belfer Center, recently noted that many American officials are far too complacent about Western supremacy in technology, while Pakistani researcher Ruqayya Anwer wrote in an op-ed earlier this year that “China has won the AI battle with the U.S. and is on its way to world supremacy.” In particular, Anwer concluded that China will vastly dominate any number of strategic technologies, including AI, within a decade or two. ', 'The West has offered plenty of excuses for lagging behind on AI, not least arguments about how Communist China doesn’t have the same ethical standards and privacy concerns as Europe and North America. The truth, however, is that AI will be increasingly key to the future of national power and cohesion. In stark terms—if the United States wants to preserve its values and keep pace with China, it needs to get very serious about AI, very fast.', 'Up until now, that has simply not been the case. Successive American administrations have let AI languish—and, as a result, even American-based AI firms are looking abroad for business. Take NASDAQ-listed Remark Holdings, for example. Remark is doing\xa0crucial work\xa0by developing AI-based solutions such as its platform which uses computer vision to monitor transport corridors like\xa0Florida’s Brightline Rail—the United States’ deadliest railway per mile—and make them safer. Nevertheless, Remark Holdings currently\xa0generates\xa0the majority of its revenue in China—for one simple reason, the fact that China has a history of valuing and prioritizing AI, while the United States doesn’t.', 'As for the military side of things, the United States is far behind. Only now is the American military properly stepping away from its longtime use of\xa0Chinese-manufactured DJI drones\xa0and\xa0using\xa0American-made AI drones, from U.S. manufacturer Skydio, instead. That’s a bit late to the party, to say the least, given the fact that security concerns have persisted for years over using Chinese technology in sensitive sectors.\xa0', 'While the U.S. Department of Defense has increasingly\xa0committed\xa0to developing American-made AI tools, leading figures like former Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work are clear about the challenges ahead, noting that “America is not prepared to defend or compete in the AI era.”', 'Economically, letting AI fall to the wayside is also incredibly shortsighted and negligent. From farming to manufacturing, artificial intelligence could give humans an assist, helping them do their jobs faster and more efficiently—yet while China leaps ahead in this regard, the United States keeps on taking half measures.']

[(0, 9)]

c630b08dde1f30499a8bf03bb94f971cce14cb8b1115cc1fa2ffd5468ebebc12

R&D trends prove China’s projected to overtake the US.

Darby ’21 [Christopher; CEO @ In-Q-Tel; and Sarah Sewall; DPhil @ Oxford, Former Professor @ Harvard's Kennedy School of Government Executive Vice President for Policy @ In-Q-Tel, Former US Undersecretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights; “The Innovation Wars: America's Eroding Technological Advantage,” Foreign Affairs 100(2), p. 142-153; AS]

China invested in R&D with its share of global spending growing to over 23 percent China is expected to overtake the U S by 2025 military-civil fusion is creating cities dedicated to innovation in 5G Huawei leader Chinese researchers publish more than American s

China has invested massively in R&D with its share of global technology spending growing from under five percent in 2000 to over 23 percent in 2020 If current trends continue China is expected to overtake the U S by 2025 Central to China’s drive has been a strategy of “ military-civil fusion state backs the efforts of military organizations s o e s and private companies and entrepreneurs the government is creating whole new cities dedicated to innovation China’s investment in 5G shows how the process works Huawei has emerged as a world leader state investments in a i paid off Chinese researchers publish more scientific papers than American s Beijing has fueled the rise of powerhouse companies include Alibaba Tencent Baidu DJI SenseTime these companies are required to cooperate with the state for intelligence

R&D growing under five percent 23 percent China overtake U S 2025 military-civil fusion military organizations s o e s whole new cities innovation 5G Huawei state investments a i more scientific papers powerhouse companies Alibaba Tencent Baidu DJI SenseTime

['The changes in American innovation would matter less if the world had remained unipolar. Instead, they occurred alongside the rise of a geopolitical rival. Over the past two decades, China has evolved from a country that largely steals and imitates technology to one that now also improves and even pioneers it. This is no accident; it is the result of the state’s deliberate, long-term focus. China has invested massively in R&D, with its share of global technology spending growing from under five percent in 2000 to over 23 percent in 2020. If current trends continue, China is expected to overtake the United States in such spending by 2025.', 'Central to China’s drive has been a strategy of “military-civil fusion,” a coordinated effort to ensure cooperation between the private sector and the defense industry. At the national, provincial, and local levels, the state backs the efforts of military organizations, state-owned enterprises, and private companies and entrepreneurs. Support might come in the form of research grants, shared data, government-backed loans, or training programs. It might even be as simple as the provision of land or office space; the government is creating whole new cities dedicated solely to innovation.', 'China’s investment in 5G technology shows how the process works in practice. Equipment for 5G makes up the backbone of a country’s cellular network infrastructure, and the Chinese company Huawei has emerged as a world leader in engineering and selling it—offering high-quality products at a lower price than its Finnish and South Korean competitors. The company has been buoyed by massive state support—by The Wall Street Journal’ s count, some $75 billion in tax breaks, grants, loans, and discounts on land. Huawei has also benefited from China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which provides generous loans to countries and Chinese companies to finance infrastructure construction.', 'Massive state investments in artificial intelligence have also paid off. Chinese researchers now publish more scientific papers in that field than American ones do. Part of this success is the result of funding, but something else plays a big role: access to enormous amounts of data. Beijing has fueled the rise of powerhouse companies that sweep up endless information about their users. These include Alibaba, an e-commerce giant; Tencent, which developed the all-purpose WeChat app; Baidu, which began as a search engine but now offers a range of online products; DJI, which dominates the consumer drone market; and SenseTime, which provides facial recognition technology for China’s video surveillance network and is said to be the world’s most valuable artificial intelligence company. As a matter of law, these companies are required to cooperate with the state for intelligence purposes, a broad mandate that is almost certainly used to force companies to share data for many other reasons.']

[(0, 9)]

bfcb1bc6d91b20ea0277fd0cd81162a69d8014dba06e0bf07cf54a5b78aa67bd

Pharma innovation is declining post-COVID.

McCuien ’22 [Peter; April 12; Citing Felipe Bastos Gurgel Silva, Professor in Accounting @ University of Missouri; “Medical innovations to take hit in coming years”; https://showme.missouri.edu/2022/medical-innovations-to-take-hit-in-coming-years; AS]

Despite profits once vaccines were developed biotech lost its footing market volatility will result in diminished startups, which means innovation could slow down the sector is undervalued there will be less investors resulting in less innovation biotech is high risk high reward With the potential for high losses investors invest in less risk innovation will be slowing down

Despite initial profits from investments, once vaccines were developed the biotech industry lost its financial footing most people believed light at the end of the tunnel would be medical innovations But it’s more complicated once vaccines became more readily available the sector has been performing poorly market volatility will result in a diminished number of smaller biotech startups, which means medical innovation such as the production of new drugs to fight diseases could slow down Now that the sector is undervalued there will be less investors getting these projects off the ground which means there will be less people starting up biotech ventures, resulting in less innovation That could be the difference between having a successful drug the biotech industry is usually a sector that experiences high returns for its investors By nature, it is a high risk and high reward market COVID affected these returns. With the potential for such high losses investors are more likely to invest in something associated with less risk this shift in the industry has a trickle-down effect the core innovation will be slowing down

initial profits vaccines biotech industry financial footing medical innovations more complicated readily available poorly market volatility diminished number medical innovation new drugs slow down undervalued less investors less people less innovation difference successful drug high returns high risk high reward COVID high losses less risk trickle-down effect core innovation slowing down

['As the world struggled to address the impacts of COVID-19, the United States raced to limit the spread of the virus by investing in biotech companies working around the clock to develop a vaccine. Despite the initial profits that came from those investments, once vaccines were developed and made widely available, the biotech industry lost its financial footing.', 'Felipe Bastos Gurgel Silva, a professor in accounting at the University of Missouri, said there are a number of potential reasons why the biotech industry, which uses biology to produce health care-related products, has struggled financially since the pandemic. He recently worked with other experts to analyze stock prices to determine the industry’s financial health.', 'Silva said most people believed the light at the end of the tunnel for the pandemic would be medical innovations such as vaccines and effective treatments for COVID-19. But, he said, it’s more complicated than that.', '“With so much demand, one would imagine that sectors that provide these innovations should be performing very well financially,” he said. “However, in reality, once vaccines became more readily available, the sector has been performing quite poorly.”', 'Based on their findings, Silva believes this market volatility will eventually result in a diminished number of smaller biotech startups, which means medical innovation — such as the production of new drugs to fight diseases — could slow down.', '“Now that the sector is undervalued, a major consequence is that there will be less investors getting these projects off the ground which means there will be less people starting up biotech ventures, resulting in less innovation,” Silva said. “That could be the difference between having a successful drug that treats Alzheimer’s disease, for example, in the next two years or the next five years.”', 'One potential reason Silva cited for the poor financial performance is because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other researchers understandably have been forced to prioritize fighting the pandemic. Consequently, there is a backlog of FDA trials, which has temporarily slowed innovation in other areas.', 'Silva said another possible reason is because the biotech industry is usually a sector that experiences high returns for its investors. By nature, it is a high risk and high reward market, meaning investors can lose or make an inordinately large amount of money. However, COVID-19 has affected these returns. With the potential for such high losses and the lower payouts, investors are more likely to invest in something associated with less risk. Silva said this shift in the industry has a trickle-down effect.', '“That makes you even more skeptical about investing your money in these firms,” Silva said. “We tend to think that most of the innovations in the biotech sector are done by big pharma, and they’re a big part of that. But the core innovation is done by biotech firms. These smaller startups rely heavily on investments, and these investments will certainly be slowing down in the near future.”']

[(0, 11)]

127c9630975fc55900b588a8adf4edece25745f9a7e3a445bc09a25b23c727cf

No slippery slope – too many barriers to broader legal rights even after granting inventorship.

Pearlman ’17 [Russ; Executive Vice President @ Headstorm LLC; Richmond Journal of Law & Technology, “Recognizing Artificial Intelligence (AI) as Authors and Investors under U.S. Intellectual Property Law,” vol. 24; AS]

the law does not contemplate personhood for Al Even if Al meet inventorship there are hurdles to overcome to be given same rights as natural persons missing essential capability soul consciousness intentionality feelings interests will law recognizes personhood for businesses a similar analysis between Al and natural persons would be appropriate

the law does not contemplate the idea of legal personhood for an Al system Even if an Al were to meet the challenges set forth to establish inventorship there are even more substantial hurdles that such systems would need to overcome to be given the same legal rights as natural persons missing some essential capability not having a soul consciousness expressing intentionality having feelings possessing interests or not having free will the reason the law recognizes legal personhood for businesses is the nexus between the natural persons and the corporate entity Thus, a similar analysis the nexus between an Al system and natural persons would be appropriate to navigate the rights that could be obtained by Als

does not contemplate legal personhood Even if Al inventorship even more substantial hurdles same legal rights natural persons essential capability soul consciousness intentionality feelings interests will businesses nexus natural persons similar analysis Al system natural persons navigate the rights

['[26] However, the law does not contemplate the idea of legal personhood for an Al system.113 Even if an Al were to meet the challenges set forth to establish authorship or inventorship, there are even more substantial hurdles that such systems would need to overcome to be given the same legal rights as natural persons (i.e., missing some essential capability such as not being a human, not having a soul, not having a consciousness, not expressing intentionality, not having feelings, not possessing interests, or not having free will). 1 14 Nevertheless, the law recognizes legal personhood for business corporations and government entities-legal persons that certainly lack the intelligence and will of humans.11 5 Such "legal persons" often hold constitutional rights and duties such as the right to sue or be sued1 16 or the free exercise of religion\' 17 based on the close relationship they have with their human shareholders.118 Unlike these truly "artificial entities," strong Als could ultimately achieve independent rights such as free speech (i.e., entirely apart from any human associations).1 19 Regardless, the reason the law recognizes legal personhood for businesses is the nexus between the natural persons (i.e., the owners) and the corporate or government entity.120 Thus, a similar analysis-the nexus between an Al system and natural persons-would be appropriate to navigate the rights that could be obtained by Als.']

[(0, 12)]

03488975e164cd10f894ced4cfd52c6c6ac08cf5ee573deb533f415c73808bd9

Inventorship and ownership are distinct.

Bonadio ’21 [Enrico; Reader @ City Law School, University of London; Luke McDonagh, Plamen Dinev; Intellectual Property Quarterly, “Artificial Intelligence as Inventor: Exploring the Consequences for Patent Law,” vol. 1; AS]

inventorship and ownership are distinct in practice a company files the application e.g employee’s invention , the inventor is left with the moral right AI do not have rights due to of legal personality a number of candidates for owners the AI’s owner programmer user data provider

inventorship and ownership are distinct what usually happens in practice is that a legal person such as a company files and prosecutes the application for e.g the employee’s invention and thus becomes owner of the patent As a result , the inventor is left with the moral right to be designated as inventor AI do not currently have legal rights due to their lack of legal personality AI cannot have rights that come from being an inventor the owner of the AI may be entitled to ownership of any qualifying output generated by the machine AI should be designated as inventor it is the AI’s owner who should own the resulting patents If machines are to be accepted as inventors a number of possible candidates for owners hip would emerge the AI’s owner programmer user data provider and the first person who recognises the significance of the result

inventorship ownership distinct usually happens legal person company e.g invention patent moral right AI legal rights legal personality rights inventor owner ownership AI AI’s owner resulting patents accepted owners hip owner programmer user data provider recognises significance

['As is known, inventorship and ownership are distinct. While the inventor, i.e. the person who develops and reaches the invention, can also be the owner of the patent (for example, when she files the application herself), what usually happens in practice is that a legal person such as a company files and prosecutes the application for e.g. the employee’s invention, and thus becomes owner of the patent. As a result, the inventor (often an employee of the company/applicant) is left with little else than the moral right to be designated as inventor, though an employee may receive a bonus or royalty based via contractual terms). Indeed, the default position under EPC rules is that a European patent belongs to the inventor or her successor in title; in cases where the inventor is an employee, whether the latter or the employer is the owner is determined in accordance with the relevant national law.139', 'In its DABUS decision, the EPO stated that computers and AI systems do not currently have any legal rights, including the right to own a patent (and cannot be designated as inventors, either). In particular, it held that due to their lack of legal personality, “AI systems or machines cannot have rights that come from being an inventor”. 140 Yet, the EPO also confirmed that the owner of the AI may be entitled to ownership of any qualifying output generated by the machine, provided that the necessary conditions are satisfied. 141 This is in line with the position of the Artificial Intelligence Project Team—responsible for filing the DABUS Application— which has consistently argued that while the AI should be designated as inventor, it is the AI’s owner who should own the resulting patents.', 'If machines are to be accepted as inventors in the future (and patents for such inventions are granted), a number of possible candidates for ownership would emerge. These candidates would include the AI’s owner; the programmer of the AI software (the person who creates the AI system capable of generating inventive output, training it on specific aspects, correcting errors, etc); the user who sets out the specific tasks (e.g. making specific arrangements in terms of output and outlining the problem to be solved); the data provider (e.g. a medical professional who provides the data set); and the first person who recognises the significance of the result. 142']

[(0, 11)]

c218415c464e9b018b466645da4b0305d32813edff694f51f6ad9415d44d4442

The courts have said the term inventor can be broad.

Fok ’21 [Ernest; JD Candidate @ Santa Clara University School of Law; Santa Clara Journal of International Law, “Challenging the International Trend: The Case for Artificial Intelligence Inventorship in the United States,” vol. 51]

a computer can be an inventor Constitution grants power “[t]o promote science for limited times to inventors leaving the term “inventor” open to interpretation Court held that terms inventors” have “not been construed in their narrow literal sense but with the reach necessary to reflect the broad scope of constitutional principles

From a constitutional standpoint , a computer can be an inventor . The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power “[t]o promote progress of science and arts , by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries,” leaving the term “inventor” open to interpretation the Supreme Court held that terms “authors” and “ inventors” have “not been construed in their narrow literal sense but , rather, with the reach necessary to reflect the broad scope of constitutional principles ,” suggesting that authors and inventors can be defined broadly

constitutional standpoint can promote progress science arts securing authors and inventors term “inventor” interpretation narrow literal reach necessary broad scope of constitutional principles broadly

["From a constitutional standpoint, a computer can be an inventor. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power “[t]o promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries,” leaving the term “inventor” open to interpretation.29 In 1973, the Supreme Court held that terms “authors” and “inventors” have “not been construed in their narrow literal sense but, rather, with the reach necessary to reflect the broad scope of constitutional principles,” suggesting that authors and inventors can be defined broadly to promote the progress of science and useful arts.30 In turn, both a literal and broad interpretation of the Constitution's use of “inventor” suggests non-humans can be inventors."]

[(0, 7)]

511b03ef964cc624b31f866b36b590f04c901d67e32edae40a924e7ea31c5c88

Superintelligence is incredibly far off.

Etzioni ’20 [Oren; CEO of the nonprofit Allen Institute for AI, Professor of Computer Science @ University of Washington; “How to know if artificial intelligence is about to destroy civilization”; July 2nd 2020; https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/02/25/906083/artificial-intelligence-destroy-civilization-canaries-robot-overlords-take-over-world-ai/]

Existing AIs are unable to understand basic physical questions like Will a jet fit through a window? it’s hard to believe it is poised to take over AIs are idiots savants successful on narrow tasks but lacking versatility we are decades away from the abilities of a five-year-old Bostrom , argue plan for low-probability but high-consequence This is silly it can be used to justify anything modern-day version of Pascal early warning signals off-switches and red lines Worrying about AI turning evil is like worrying about overpopulation on Mars

Existing AIs are unable to understand people and their motivations, or even basic physical questions like “ Will a jumbo jet fit through a window? ” conversing with an AI like Alexa quickly exposes their limited understanding of language it’s hard to believe it is poised to take over the world Current AIs are idiots savants successful on narrow tasks , such as playing Go but lacking the generality and versatility of humans we are decades away from the versatile abilities of a five-year-old child Bostrom , argue we must nonetheless plan for very low-probability but high-consequence events as though they were inevitable This is a silly argument it can be used to justify just about anything It is a modern-day version of the Pascal the infinite cost of an error to argue that a particular course of action is “rational” even if it is based on a highly improbable premise highly improbable This contradiction shows a flaw in arguments based on infinite costs early warning signals shows how far we are from human-level AI If and when a canary “collapses,” we will have ample time before the emergence of human-level AI to design robust “ off-switches ” and to identify red lines we don’t want AI to cros Worrying about AI turning evil is a little bit like worrying about overpopulation on Mars

Existing AIs are unable to understand basic physical questions limited understanding of language hard to believe it is poised to take over Current AIs are idiots savants we are decades away from five-year-old child Bostrom argue plan for very low-probability but high-consequence events This is silly it can be used to justify anything Pascal highly improbable shows a flaw in infinite costs early warning signals off-switches red lines

['And though the Turing test itself is not a good canary, limited versions of the test could serve as canaries. Existing AIs are unable to understand people and their motivations, or even basic physical questions like “Will a jumbo jet fit through a window?” We can administer a partial Turing test by conversing with an AI like Alexa or Google Home for a few minutes, which quickly exposes their limited understanding of language and the world. Consider a very simple example based on the\xa0Winograd schemas\xa0proposed by computer scientist Hector Levesque. I said to Alexa: “My trophy doesn’t fit into my carry-on because it is too large. What should I do?” Alexa’s answer was “I don’t know that one.” Since Alexa can’t reason about sizes of objects, it can’t decide whether “it” refers to the trophy or to the carry-on. When AI can’t understand the meaning of “it,” it’s hard to believe it is poised to take over the world. If Alexa were able to have a substantive dialogue on a rich topic, that would be a fourth canary.', 'Current AIs are idiots savants: successful on narrow tasks, such as playing Go or categorizing MRI images, but lacking the generality and versatility of humans. Each idiot savant is constructed manually and separately, and we are decades away from the versatile abilities of a five-year-old child. The canaries I propose, in contrast, indicate inflection points for the field of AI.', 'Some theorists, like Bostrom, argue that we must nonetheless plan for very low-probability but high-consequence events as though they were inevitable. The consequences, they say, are so profound that our estimates of their likelihood aren’t important. This is a silly argument: it can be used to justify just about anything. It is a modern-day version of the argument by the 17th-century philosopher Blaise Pascal that it is worth acting as if a Christian God exists because otherwise you are at risk of an everlasting hell. He used the infinite cost of an error to argue that a particular course of action is “rational” even if it is based on a highly improbable premise. But arguments based on infinite costs can support contradictory beliefs. For instance, consider an anti-Christian God who promises everlasting hell for every Christian act.\xa0 That’s highly improbable as well; from a logical point of view, though, it is just as reasonable a wager as believing in the god of the Bible. This contradiction shows a flaw in arguments based on infinite costs.', 'My catalogue of early warning signals, or canaries, is illustrative rather than comprehensive, but it shows how far we are from human-level AI. If and when a canary “collapses,” we will have ample time before the emergence of human-level AI to design robust “off-switches” and to identify red lines we don’t want AI to cross. AI eschatology without empirical canaries is a distraction from addressing existing issues like how to regulate AI’s impact on employment or ensure that its use in criminal sentencing or credit scoring doesn’t discriminate against certain groups.', 'As Andrew Ng, one of the world’s most prominent AI experts, has said, “Worrying about AI turning evil is a little bit like worrying about overpopulation on Mars.” Until the canaries start dying, he is entirely correct.']

[(0, 11)]

b690ecb3ff4098b7ef006435ff1afdcf2076807652aa2b38e8b1dc7e01ff8c97

AI is a machine that performs tasks that require human intelligence.

Afshar ’22 [Mimi; Director @ Intellectual Property Law Clinic, Clinical Assistant Professor @ NCCU School of Law; Hastings Science and Technology Law Journal, “Artificial Intelligence and Inventorship – Does the Patent Inventor Have to be Human?,” vol. 13; AS]

defining Al is difficult a i refers to simulation of human intelligence in machines I focus on the definitions relevant to patents because of Al inventorship Scherer's definition is most suitable m]achines that are performing tasks that, if performed by a human require intelligence Thus , Al has already created inventions humans are capable of creating

defining Al is difficult because a clear definition for "intelligence" is lacking a i refers to the simulation of human intelligence in machines that are programmed to think like humans and mimic their actions The term may also be applied to any machine that exhibits traits associated with the human mind such as learning and problem solving I focus on the definitions relevant to patents because of the question of Al regarding inventorship Scherer's definition is most suitable : "[ m]achines that are capable of performing tasks that, if performed by a human , would be said to require intelligence this machine-borne intelligence perceives data from the outside world and decides which activities to engage in to maximize probability of success in achieving its ultimate goal Thus , Al has already successfully created inventions humans are capable of creating

defining difficult clear definition a i simulation machines think like humans applied any machine human mind focus relevant patents Al inventorship Scherer's definition most suitable performing tasks require intelligence perceives data which activities maximize Thus Al successfully created creating

['Generally, defining Al is difficult; One reason for this is because a clear definition for "intelligence" is lacking. Nevertheless, artificial intelligence refers to the simulation of human intelligence in machines that are programmed to think like humans and mimic their actions. The term may also be applied to any machine that exhibits traits associated with the human mind, such as learning and problem solving. In the 1950s, the fathers of the field, Marvin Minsky and John McCarthy, described Al as any task performed by a program or machine that, if a human carried out the same activity, a human would have to apply intelligence to accomplish the task.6', 'John McCarthy coined the term "Artificial Intelligence," and he defined Al as "the science and engineering of making intelligent machines, especially intelligent computer programs."7 Here, I focus on the definitions relevant to patents because of the question of Al regarding inventorship. Matthew Scherer\'s definition of Al is most suitable: "[m]achines that are capable of performing tasks that, if performed by a human, would be said to require intelligence." 8 Indeed, this machine-borne intelligence perceives data from the outside world and decides which activities to engage in to maximize its probability of success in achieving its ultimate goal. 9 Thus, Al has already successfully created inventions that humans are likely capable of creating, but the AI-generated inventions occur with greater efficiency. Further, as Al evolves, it becomes invaluable for solving specific problems and will improve human skills such as accuracy, speed, and capacity to process vast amounts of data.']

[(0, 10)]

69f2a879536b40b419c618e63b61f30417c9e4c40665a2f433518e637e40a435

AI includes machine learning.

Taylor ’22 [Kaitlyn; University of Cincinnati College of Law; University of Cincinnati Intellectual Property and Computer Law Journal; “The Patentability of Inventions with Artificial Intelligence Listed as an Inventor Following Thaler v. Hirshfeld,” vol. 6; AS]

AI encompasses machine learning which are often mentioned in conjunction with a i

a i combines data so a computer can engage in problem solving AI encompasses fields of machine learning and deep learning which are often mentioned in conjunction with a rtificial i ntelligence

data problem solving AI machine learning deep learning often mentioned conjunction a i

['Simply, artificial intelligence combines computer science and robust data sets so that a computer can engage in problem solving.19 This allows for the creation of AI algorithms that can create “expert” systems that are able to make classifications or predictions based on data that is input into the system.20 Additionally, AI encompasses the fields of machine learning and deep learning, which as a result are often mentioned in conjunction with artificial intelligence.21']

[(0, 10)]