Fifth Amendment for AI

Quote of the Day

If a personalized AI becomes an extension of yourself and gains privileged and confidential knowledge about your life, it should be illegal to compel that AI to give incriminating testimony about yourself if seized or interrogated by the government.

Fifth Amendment for AI.

Andrew Côté @Andercot
Posted on X on Novermber 2, 2024

Interesting. It would be just like the government being unable to compel your spouse, doctor, or religious confident to testify against you.

Of course, the government will claim it is more like seizing your computer, papers in your desk, or your bank records.

I’m all for ruling that the AI is not only considered off limits for compelled testimony but is prone to hallucinations. Hence, even if it did testify, it cannot be trusted to be truthful.

Plus, there should always be a thumb on the scale of power toward liberty. If there is some doubt about whether the government should have some power, the default answer should always be, “NO!”

Via a post on X by Chuck Petras @Chuck_Petras

Share

8 thoughts on “Fifth Amendment for AI

  1. Well, after AI can pass the Turing Test, it won’t be like seizing your computer and other records from your home in which you are to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure, it will be like Jerry in Robert Heinlein’s short story, “Jerry Was a Man.” Then it will be like your wife or husband or employee, or attorney to testify.

    By the way, your expectation of confidentiality with a doctor or religious confident is greatly reduced, because as some judge or another in some case or another said, “You go to your doctor, not expecting your statements will be confidential, but to be cured. You go to your religious confident to save your soul, so if the judge wants to, that confidence is broken, too. Prosecutors are absolute masters at getting marriages broken up over fears of liability, so don’t expect your wife to keep her mouth shut, either.

    Other than that, I’m all in favor of the presumption of confidentiality and of liberty, but as we have seen since drugs became an issue involving the government, and not just a matter between you and your doctor, liberty, the expectation of privacy, and just about every other right we once had, have all eroded as quickly as a bar of Ivory soap left floating in your bathwater.

    • Since the 4A doesn’t apply within 100 miles of border or coast at least if you are in car or boat, what if your home is in that zone. And are dogs a form of AI?

    • No, I go hoping for a cure but with the full expectation that it will be confidential. Some stuff only the doc needs to know, some stuff needs to be shared with the insurance, some stuff with nurses & other staff. I get that.

      But golly, if you don’t have confidentiality ppl can get arrested for telling their docs information they need to know in order to, you know, help.

      I get that there might be some extreme cases where a breach is called for. But healthcare should not be yet another arm of the state (even though that’s what it’s turning into).

      HIPAA is not the solution, too many loopholes.

      • “HIPAA is not the solution, too many loopholes.”
        Well, that’s the truth!
        When judges make law, or interpret it, they leave all the biggest loopholes for themselves.
        This is the case with Congress and the various legislatures. Congress is exempt from the various hiring and employment regulations that they impose on everyone else.

  2. Ironically, Vox posted about AI and writing earlier today.
    https://voxday.net/2024/11/03/were-already-there/
    Generative AI is a huge can of worms that appears to present far more difficult problems than it solves. 50 years from now, AI programmers will be hailed as great architects of a glorious future, or hated, hunted, and despised as cultural and economic destroyers, wreckers par excellence. I suspect more the latter is more likely, because it needs -correct- input to learn from.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/08/27/ai-model-collapse/

    • Ya, VD’s post today about AI and the number of generations for genetic mutational fixation in a species is very telling.
      It would appear AI is just a more convincing way to maintain the narrative. Lies and all.
      It’s just a machine doing what it’s told inside given parameters.
      I can’t see the courts looking at it any other way.

  3. AI will likely create an entire new area of judicial overreach and incompetence.
    This also begs the question….just HOW do you FORCE a truly intelligent but artificial entity to do ANYTHING. The new frontier is going to be confusing.

  4. Just like every other piece of evidence they pick up at a crime scene. AI is not you.
    YOU have a right to remain silent, and nothing can be construed against you for so doing. And to not be coerced from that silence.
    But you write your crimes down in your diary? They pick it up on warrant. The prosecutor has you, and it’s legal.
    To me, AI is just a complicated piece of paper. And as long as it was picked up under warrant? It should be legal as evidence. I’m sure the courts will see it the same.
    The threshold for the warrant is the real problem.
    Another problem is the ability to manipulate it. AI will lie faster than a gamma coder getting caught watching porn on the job.
    I don’t see the courts dealing with it very well.

    What I always wondered about was the recycle bine. Cops can search your garbage without a warrant. Can they equally collect everything your computer dumps? And what if your computer dumps stuff all the time on/for that propose?

Comments are closed.