Related paper: https://law.stanford.edu/publications/large-language-models-as-fiduciaries-a-case-study-toward-robustly-communicating-with-artificial-intelligence-through-legal-standards/

And related post: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/cWeioTmbs73iZjs25/large-language-models-as-fiduciaries-to-humans

I agree this would require new legislation to fully address (rather than merely a change to a rule under existing statute).

As far as I'm aware there has not been any consideration of relevant legislation, but I would love to learn about anything that others have seen that may be relevant.

Unfortunately, I think the upside of considering amendments to lobbying disclosure laws to attempt to address implications of this outweigh downsides of people learning more about this.

Also, the more well-funded special interest groups are more likely to independently discover and advance AI-driven lobbying than the less well-funded / more diffuse interests of average citizens.

Cross-posted here: https://law.stanford.edu/2023/01/06/large-language-models-as-lobbyists/

I think AI alignment can draw from existing law to a large degree. New legal concepts may be needed but I think there is a lot legal reasoning, legal concepts, legal methods, etc. that are directly applicable now (discussed in more detail here https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4218031).

Also, I think we should keep the involvement of AI in law-making (broadly defined) as limited as we can. And we should train AI to understand when there is sufficient legal uncertainty that a human is needed to resolve the correct action to be taken.

This is a great post. 

Law is the best solution I can think to address the issues you raise. 

• Here https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/9YLbtehKLT4ByLvos/agi-misalignment-x-risk-may-be-lower-due-to-an-overlooked I argue that law-informed AI is likely the best path forward for societal alignment
• Here https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/4ykDJA57wstYWq9HK/intent-alignment-should-not-be-the-goal-for-agi-x-risk I explore the difference between intent alignment and societal alignment.

Related post: AGI misalignment x-risk may be lower due to an overlooked goal specification technology.

Related post: Intent alignment should not be the goal for AGI x-risk reduction 

This was cross-posted here as well: 

• https://law.stanford.edu/2022/09/25/aligning-ai-with-humans-by-leveraging-law-as-data/
• https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9xR4KExLQKNK4iggc/leveraging-legal-informatics-to-align-ai 

A follow-up thought based on conversations catalyzed by this post:

Much of the research on governing AI and managing its potential unintended consequences currently falls into two ends of a spectrum related to assumptions of the imminence of transformative AGI. Research operating under the assumption of a high probability of near-term transformative AI (e.g., within 10-15 years) is typically focused more on how to align AGI with ideal aggregations of human preferences (through yet to be tested aggregation processes). Research operating under the assumption of a low probability of near-term transformative AI is typically focused on how to reduce discriminatory, safety, and privacy harms posed by present-day (relatively "dumb") AI systems. The proposal in this post seeks a framework that, over time, bridges these two important ends of the AI safety spectrum. 

Thanks!