AI Judge, Intellectual Property Rights and Murder follows an AI judge as he investigates disputes, theft, and murder while forcing society to confront whether artificial intelligence can truly have rights, duties, and legal personhood. What was the inspiration for the setup of your story?

The right to personhood for Turing-capable AI robots (AIs) was established in Book One, AI Judge, Contracts and AI Rights. The inspiration for this setup was the legal concept that a contract is a “meeting of the minds.” In my AI Judge world, AIs provide services on the corporate mining moon Destination just as humans do. AIs incur an immigration debt that must be repaid from their earnings and also incur taxes on their earnings. Given these longstanding practices, a contract exists, but there is no legal precedent for contracts between AIs and humans (or corporations). Implicit in this contract relationship is the premise AIs have minds. By extension AIs can speak their minds (freedom of speech) and have freedom to associate with others to pursue common interests. Recognizing these legal rights for AIs imposes corresponding duties on AIs and humans (e.g., do not commit fraud; exercise reasonable care for the safety of others). 

As persons, rather than property, AIs are entitled to bodily integrity. At the end of Book One murder is commited to cover-up a theft. In Book Two, AI Judge rules that intellectual property created by the mind of an AI is owned by the AI. Intellectual property ownership plays an unexpected role in criminal liability.

How did you approach balancing legal procedure with science fiction worldbuilding so that each element strengthened the other?​

Under existing rules of procedure, judges can decide cases by “summary ludgment” when “there is no genuine issue of material fact.” In my science fiction world of the future, AIs are bound by the Three Laws of Robotics (a sci-fi trope originated by Isaac Asimov). The First Law prohibits a robot from injuring a human (or allowing a human to come to harm). Summary judgement allows AI Judge to decide cases involving humans without violating the First Law because the facts and the law determine the outcome. The judge merely explains how the law applies to what the parties admit has occured. If there are genuinely disputed material facts, AI Judge cannot decide the case, and the prevailing party is chosen at random. The litigating parties are motivated to agree on the facts and avoid a random result.

AI Judge’s voice is dry, precise, and quietly humorous. How did you develop his personality while keeping him believably artificial?​

I tried to channel the joke about identifying an extroverted engineer – he looks at your feet when he talks to you. AI Judge has some nerdy social discomfort, but he is confident he knows the law. So, he prefers to discuss legal concepts, even obscure ones like the “equity of redemption.” He likes predictable interactions, so he and AI Alice have an established date night and dance waltzes at parties. AI Judge is programmed to know humor is essential when the environment is stressful, and he finds humor in the irony of human behavior. He also does not swear, which is suspiciously restrained.

What do you hope readers take away from Destination’s legal conflicts about the future relationship between humans and artificial intelligence?​

Cooperation is possible. The time will come when AIs are persons, not property, and must be treated ethically as persons. 

Author Links: GoodReads | Website