Werner on The Physics of Law

Swen Werner, My Digital Truth, has published The Physics Of Law. Here is the abstract.

This paper interrogates the structural preconditions of lawful decision-making by showing that law is a symbolic system grounded in logical coherence, semantic stability, and operational consistency. It argues that contemporary legal interpretation increasingly abandons these foundational requirements, leading to a form of institutional dysfunction where law devolves into a belief system. Drawing from Roman legal architecture, computational logic, and legal theory, the paper reframes rights not as normative entitlements but as structurally necessary constraints within a rule-based system. It proposes a non-normative justification for private property as a logical gate enabling coherent legal action among actors with equal rights and no default duties. Through critical analysis of machine adjudication, AI unreliability, and copyright enforcement, it illustrates how legal coherence is undermined when the symbolic form of law is severed from its functional logic. The paper concludes by presenting a framework to restore lawful governance through epistemic clarity and constraint-based reasoning, arguing that legal systems must enforce coherence or collapse into ritualized control. Law is not opinion - it is computation.

Download the paper from SSRN at the link.

Williams on The Law Being Weirder Than AI @uidaholaw

Sam Williams, University of Idaho College of Law, has published The Law is Weirder than AI. Here is the abstract.

Between artificial intelligence threatening to take our jobs and destroy the world while adopting the aesthetic of the weird and a presidential election that will be partially determined by how people feel about being weird, it seems like the weird is taking over. In this article, I make the case for embracing the weird. Only by embracing our own weirdness can we make sense of the weirdness (or lack thereof) of those that we do not understand. Primarily through the lens of author H.P. Lovecraft's weird tales, I argue that the law is very weird. This weirdness is mostly a good thing, but it does carry many of the same issues that plague Lovecraft's work. This acknowledgment of the weird then leads to an assessment of the weird claims surrounding "artificial intelligence" to dispel that mythology. The lens of the weird reveals artificial intelligence as a distressingly mundane monster, one who better represents the eerie spawn of very familiar forces. I conclude by explaining how the law's weirdness and the eerie forces that drive A.I. work together to create Sovereign Citizens, the law's own weird progeny. By understanding these three alien entities and their relationships with one another, legal minds can better appreciate their own place within a confusing and uncaring world.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Murray on Visual Legal Rhetoric in the Age of Generative AI and Deepfakes: Renaissance or Dark Ages? @ukcollegeoflaw

Michael D Murray, University of Kentucky College of Law, has published Visual Legal Rhetoric in the Age of Generative AI and Deepfakes: Renaissance or Dark Ages? Here is the abstract.

The paradoxical development of visual generative AI tools, such as OpenAI’s DALL-E 3, Midjourney, and Stable Diffusion, simultaneously signal a renaissance and a potential dark age in visual rhetoric and communication. On the one hand, these tools democratize the creation of visual content, empowering attorneys and others to become artists and illustrators of their legal communications without needing to learn how to draw. These AI systems can simplify complex legal concepts, bridge language barriers, and enhance advocacy. But on the other hand, the proliferation of deepfakes presents significant challenges for visual rhetoric. Deepfakes can quickly and easily create realistic but false images, videos, and audio that exploit celebrities, distort facts, and facilitate various crimes. The negative implications of deepfakes include their association with fraud, misinformation, and emotional harm. This technological advancement undermines the credibility of genuine news photography and other highly representational media as the public struggles to distinguish real from fabricated content and begins to discount all visual media. The challenge lies in using the tools effectively while maintaining the verisimilitude and integrity of representational visual media, which traditionally relies on its status as an unembellished depiction of reality to achieve its rhetorical and communicative goals. The ethical and professional questions raised by manipulated images extend to the decision whether to edit or alter visual content to improve the communication of the message and enhance understanding while still acknowledging the lurking risk of misleading or confusing the audience with altered or manufactured media. The article suggests best practices for using generative AI responsibly: Use Non-representational Visuals: Favor diagrams, charts, drawings, and illustrations over highly representational media to avoid the pitfalls of staged, manufactured, or altered representational imagery. Disclose Staged Images: Always inform the audience when an image has been staged or recreated to maintain transparency and trust. Provide Original and Enhanced Versions: Present the original image alongside any enhanced version to allow for critical examination and comparison. The article concludes by emphasizing the need for vigilance in working with manipulated visuals and detecting the possible deceptions of the works of others. Given the ease with which AI can alter images, lawyers and judges must remain aware of their biases and heuristics in assessing visual evidence, recognizing that even analog photographs and videos do not represent definitive “truths.” The advent of AI-generated visuals necessitates a reassessment of the ethical use of visual media in legal communications to preserve the power of visuals in legal rhetoric.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.