# The Opaque Law of Artificial Intelligence

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.13192 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13192/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 5 of its 25 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 19 Oct 2023.

## Builds on (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [Attention Is All You Need](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03762/) (2017)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.12712/) (2023)
- [Regulating ChatGPT and other Large Generative AI Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.02337/) (2023)
- [The European AI Liability Directives -- Critique of a Half-Hearted Approach and Lessons for the Future](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.13960/) (2022)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the opacity of algorithms, contextualized in the open debate on responsibility for artificial intelligence causation; with an experimental approach by which, applying the proposed conversational methodology of the Turing Test, we expect to evaluate the performance of one of the best existing NLP model of generative AI (Chat-GPT) to see how far it can go right now and how the shape of a legal regulation of it could be. The analysis of the problem will be supported by a comment of Italian classical law categories such as causality, intent and fault to understand the problem of the usage of AI, focusing in particular on the human-machine interaction. On the computer science side, for a technical point of view of the logic used to craft these algorithms, in the second chapter will be proposed a practical interrogation of Chat-GPT aimed at finding some critical points of the functioning of AI. The end of the paper will concentrate on some existing legal solutions which can be applied to the problem, plus a brief description of the approach proposed by EU Artificial Intelligence act.