@drmtown

Working on artificial intelligence, consumer protection, and civil procedure. Law professor currently visiting at @YaleLawSch, usually at @GeorgetownLaw

wilftownsend.net/
Joined July 2009
  • Tweets1.3K
  • Following1.3K
  • Followers1.2K
134Media
The new lawsuit by LASST raises an interesting issue about the reach of AB 316, the California statute designed to limit the ability of AI developers and users to say "I didn't do that, an autonomous AI did" as a defense to liability.
2
16
673
more replies
There's plenty more that could come up in this case, too—questions about harm, unfairness, CA standing law on resource-diversion theories, etc. Here's the complaint for those who might be interested: lasst.org/wp-content/uploads…. I'll be curious to see where this case goes.
1
1
100
Just to be clear, a small coda: if AB 316 *doesn't* prevent OpenAI from making the mens rea argument, I can imagine that being disappointing to some AB 316 fans—the mens rea argument could feel like an "AI did it, not me" defense that would be allowed to get through.
1
93
Some early thoughts on the Florida AG's motion for a preliminary injunction against OpenAI. The rhetorical strategy is a notable development—a lawsuit from a state AG prominently featuring catastrophic risk statements of OpenAI employees. But I'll focus mostly the law. 🧵
1
2
2
11
2,042
more replies
Of course, the consumer harm theories are still alive and well. There is a lawsuit about what @TheZvi might call mundane utility lurking in a package dressed up more existentially. It will be interesting to see whether this is an effective strategy—it very well could be.
1
1
109
Alright, that's it for now. I'm curious to see where this goes. And here's a link to the motion for those who are curious: cbs12.com/resources/pdf/188a…
1
95
Load more