To the editor: Thanks for a balanced, unemotional column about the handling of the question of how “human” AI is (“In two new court cases, judges find that AI does not have human intelligence,” March 6). Perhaps I agree with the rulings because that is how I view AI and want it to be viewed; i.e., it is a tool or a supplement to our abilities, including those involving creativity.
Maybe a new category of copyright law could be created involving works created by AI. As the technology has to be formed/created/backed by humans, at least at this time still, perhaps such guardrails could be reasonably implemented. At the point when AI is more self-sufficient, however, then the subject would need to be addressed again in that context.
Brave new world we’re living in, eh?
As for the attorney-client privilege claim, as a paralegal in a number of firms over a 30-year period, I pretty much see the court’s decision as a slam dunk.
John Snyder, Newbury Park
