I asked Chat.GPT-4 if an AI could be prosecuted for wire fraud? Here's what I got back.
Rapid innovations in AI present new and interesting challenges for law enforcement and prosecutors when it comes to intent-based crimes such as wire fraud. Do AI systems possess the requisite intent or consciousness to devise and orchestrate a scheme to defraud? I recently prompted Chat GPT-4 with that very question.
Can an AI possess the requisite “intent” to defraud? That is the question. There are four essential elements of the crime of wire fraud: (1) that the defendant voluntarily and intentionally devised or participated in a scheme to defraud another out of money; (2) that the defendant did so with the intent to defraud; (3) that it was reasonably foreseeable that interstate wire communications would be used; and (4) that interstate wire communications were in fact used.
I got the following response:
“The concept of intent is a crucial element in determining criminal liability. Intent refers to a person's state of mind and their purposeful involvement in illegal activities. As of my knowledge cutoff in September 2021, AI systems are created and programmed by humans, and they do not possess their own independent intent. AI can process information, make decisions, and perform actions based on its programming and training data. However, AI lacks consciousness and personal motivations, which are fundamental to the concept of intent. Therefore, an AI system itself cannot possess the requisite intent to defraud or engage in criminal activities. However, it's important to note that if an AI system is used by individuals with the intent to defraud or for criminal purposes, the responsibility would lie with those individuals rather than the AI system itself. Laws and regulations surrounding AI and its applications continue to evolve, and legal frameworks will address these complex issues as they arise.”
That prompted me to follow-up with this prompt:
What if AI's self-learning model devises and executes the scheme to defraud without any further human inputs
Here’s how Chat GPT-4 responded:
As of my knowledge cutoff in 2021, even self-learning models, such as those using deep learning or reinforcement learning, don't actually exhibit autonomous intent in the way humans do. They use data to identify patterns and make decisions based on those patterns, but they do not possess consciousness, personal motivations, or the ability to form plans in the same way a human would.
That said, there's a hypothetical scenario where an AI system, in pursuit of a goal set by its operators, stumbles upon actions that could be considered fraudulent if they were carried out by a human with intent. For example, an AI tasked with maximizing profits might find and exploit loopholes in a system in ways that might be deemed unethical or illegal. But even in this scenario, the AI isn't consciously deciding to commit fraud. It's merely following its programming in a very efficient, possibly unexpected, way.
Legal liability in such cases is still generally placed on the human operators of the AI. This includes the developers who designed the AI and the end users who deployed it. They may be held responsible for negligence if they failed to foresee potential harmful actions by the AI or failed to implement sufficient safeguards.
It's also worth noting that these hypothetical scenarios underscore the importance of careful AI design and oversight. AI ethics is a growing field focused on ensuring that AI systems are designed and used responsibly.
This situation may evolve as AI technology progresses and legal systems continue to adapt, and different jurisdictions may handle this differently. For the most current understanding, it would be advisable to consult a legal professional or expert in AI law.
For now, AI is of the opinion that it is incapable of independently forming the intent to defraud. AI maintains that the ultimate criminal culpability for an AI generated fraud scheme may rest with the the developers who designed the AI and the human operators who devised and deployed the scheme to defraud.
Curious what possible crimes the AI believes the developer and the operator could be prosecuted for, I next asked Chat GPT-4:
What possible criminal charges could the AI developer and the AI operator face under the above scenario?
Here’s the AI’s response:
Under U.S. law and most other legal systems, criminal liability usually requires some degree of intent, knowledge, or recklessness. If an AI system is used in a fraudulent scheme, the developer or operator could potentially face charges related to that scheme, depending on their level of involvement and intent.
Here are some potential criminal charges that might be relevant:
Wire Fraud: If an AI system is used to commit fraud over the internet or telecommunications networks, the operator could potentially be charged with wire fraud, which is a federal crime in the United States.
Computer Fraud: If the AI system is used to gain unauthorized access to a computer system, or to alter or damage data, the operator might be charged with computer fraud.
Conspiracy: If there is evidence to suggest that the operator and developer knowingly worked together to use the AI system for fraudulent purposes, they could potentially be charged with conspiracy.
Aiding and Abetting: If a person knowingly assists another in committing a crime, they can be charged as an aider and abettor. Depending on the circumstances, the developer might be held liable on this basis.
Negligence: This is typically a civil matter, not a criminal one, but in some cases, gross negligence can rise to the level of criminal liability. If the developer or operator failed to implement reasonable safeguards against misuse of the AI, they could potentially face charges.
However, the exact charges would depend on the specific facts of the case, including the actions of the developer and operator, their level of knowledge and intent, and the harm caused by the AI. In general, criminal liability requires some degree of culpability beyond mere negligence, and simply creating or operating an AI system would not usually be enough to establish criminal liability.
As this is a complex and evolving area of law, for any specific situation, legal advice should be sought from a professional. These interpretations could also vary between different jurisdictions and countries. The legal landscape for AI is still developing, and there may be changes or additions to these laws in the future.
AI is a tool that executes instructions based on its programming and learning of input training data. When it comes to wire fraud schemes, prosecutors carry the ultimate burden of proving the necessary element of intent to defraud. In order to meet that burden in an AI generated fraud scheme, prosecutors would need to connect the AI outputs that facilitated the crime to some level of human interaction.
But, pinpointing exactly where human responsibility lies for the commission of an AI generated fraud scheme can be tricky. Under the law conspiracy, prosecutors could theoretically try to hold the developers, operators, users, and even those who supplied the training data criminally responsible for any role they may have played in voluntarily or intentionally furthering the fraud scheme.
In such a situation, a good criminal defense lawyer would likely put the blame on the AI. The argument would be that the increasing complexity of AI systems and their often opaque decision-making processes (known as "black box AI") could make especially difficult for prosecutors to affirmatively prove beyond a reasonable doubt whether a human intentionally devised the AI generated scheme to defraud.
Law enforcement will also very likely face challenges when comes to tracking down the parties responsible for executing the AI generated fraud scheme. With AI systems, actions can be executed at a scale and speed beyond human capabilities. Tracing back fraudulent activities to their origin, especially when they're carried out across international borders or designed to mask their origins, can be incredibly complex.
Law enforcement agencies and prosecutors therefore face a tremendous challenge when comes to learning and trying to stay ahead of AI generated crimes. The will very likely need to engage AI technical experts as well as deploy their own AI systems to help detect and trace AI frauds. But history confirms that legal frameworks have traditionally been slow to adapt to technological innovations.
AI generated criminal prosecutions will very likely challenge courts to also reconsider traditional legal notions of intent, culpability, and liability. AI is still a relatively new field, but rapidly evolving tech sector. ,As a consequence, there is lack of case law at this time that defense attorneys and prosecutors can point to when it comes to AI-related crimes. This obviously creates initial challenges and legal uncertainty as to how judges and juries may interpret facts related to AI generated crimes.
This blog post was prepared with the assistance of ChatGPT-4 AI. Nothing in this post should be considered legal advice or the creation of an attorney-client relationship. This blog is strictly for informational purposes only.