Law Proofing the Future

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.10021v1
• Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2026 14:16:41 GMT
• Title: Law Proofing the Future
• Abstract summary: Lawmakers today face continuous calls to "future proof" the legal system against emerging technologies.<n>This Article takes a contrarian stance: it is not the law that needs bolstering for the future, but the future that needs protection from the law.<n>The resulting legal regimes entrench incumbents, suppress experimentation, and displace long-standing legal principles with bespoke but brittle rules.
• Score: 0.09444500584367876
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Gemini said Lawmakers today face continuous calls to "future proof" the legal system against generative artificial intelligence, algorithmic decision-making, targeted advertising, and all manner of emerging technologies. This Article takes a contrarian stance: it is not the law that needs bolstering for the future, but the future that needs protection from the law. From the printing press and the elevator to ChatGPT and online deepfakes, the recurring historical pattern is familiar. Technological breakthroughs provoke wonder, then fear, then legislation. The resulting legal regimes entrench incumbents, suppress experimentation, and displace long-standing legal principles with bespoke but brittle rules. Drawing from history, economics, political science, and legal theory, this Article argues that the most powerful tools for governing technological change--the general-purpose tools of the common law--are in fact already on the books, long predating the technologies they are now called upon to govern, and ready also for whatever the future holds in store. Rather than proposing any new statute or regulatory initiative, this Article offers something far rarer, a defense of doing less. It shows how the law's virtues--generality, stability, and adaptability--are best preserved not through prophylactic regulation, but through accretional judicial decision-making. The epistemic limits that make technological forecasting so unreliable and the hidden costs of early legislative intervention, including biased governmental enforcement and regulatory capture, mean that however fast technology may move, the law must not chase it. The case for legal restraint is thus not a defense of the status quo, but a call to preserve the conditions of freedom and equal justice under which both law and technology can evolve.

Related papers

• When AI output tips to bad but nobody notices: Legal implications of AI's mistakes [0.0]
  generative AI introduces a perilous failure mode in which the AI fabricates fictitious case law, statutes, and judicial holdings that appear entirely authentic.<n>Attorneys who unknowingly file such fabrications face professional sanctions, malpractice exposure, and reputational harm.<n>We propose that legal professionals, courts, and regulators replace the outdated black box' mental model with verification protocols based on how these systems actually fail.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-25T02:34:47Z)
• Security, privacy, and agentic AI in a regulatory view: From definitions and distinctions to provisions and reflections [53.468443050795344]
  The rapid proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has led to a dynamic regulatory landscape.<n>As AI paradigms shift towards greater autonomy, specifically in the form of agentic AI, it becomes increasingly challenging to articulate regulatory stipulations.<n>This paper reviews the evolving European Union (EU) AI regulatory provisions via analyzing 24 relevant documents published between 2024 and 2025.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-19T13:50:52Z)
• Algorithmic A-Legality: Shorting the Human Future through AI [0.0]
  It argues that while the current development of AI is dependent on the combination of economic and legal power, the technological forms that result increasingly exceed the capacity of even the most rigorous legal and political regimes.<n>A situation of "a-legality" is emerging whereby the potential of AI to produce harms cannot be restrained by conventional legal or political institutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-19T15:43:04Z)
• RLJP: Legal Judgment Prediction via First-Order Logic Rule-enhanced with Large Language Models [58.69183479148083]
  Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) is a pivotal task in legal AI.<n>Existing LJP models integrate judicial precedents and legal knowledge for high performance.<n>But they neglect legal reasoning logic, a critical component of legal judgments requiring rigorous logical analysis.<n>This paper proposes a rule-enhanced legal judgment prediction framework based on first-order logic (FOL) formalism and comparative learning (CL)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T14:50:21Z)
• Section 230: A Juridical History [0.0]
  Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 is the most important law in the history of the internet.<n>The law has not kept pace with the times and is now a source of deep consternation to courts and legislatures.<n>This Article acts as a guidebook to reformers by examining how we got to where we are today.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T15:09:40Z)
• Securing the Future of GenAI: Policy and Technology [50.586585729683776]
  Governments globally are grappling with the challenge of regulating GenAI, balancing innovation against safety. A workshop co-organized by Google, University of Wisconsin, Madison, and Stanford University aimed to bridge this gap between GenAI policy and technology. This paper summarizes the discussions during the workshop which addressed questions, such as: How regulation can be designed without hindering technological progress?
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-21T20:30:01Z)
• Towards Explainability in Legal Outcome Prediction Models [64.00172507827499]
  We argue that precedent is a natural way of facilitating explainability for legal NLP models. By developing a taxonomy of legal precedent, we are able to compare human judges and neural models. We find that while the models learn to predict outcomes reasonably well, their use of precedent is unlike that of human judges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T15:15:41Z)
• Lawformer: A Pre-trained Language Model for Chinese Legal Long Documents [56.40163943394202]
  We release the Longformer-based pre-trained language model, named as Lawformer, for Chinese legal long documents understanding. We evaluate Lawformer on a variety of LegalAI tasks, including judgment prediction, similar case retrieval, legal reading comprehension, and legal question answering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-09T09:39:25Z)
• A Mental Trespass? Unveiling Truth, Exposing Thoughts and Threatening Civil Liberties with Non-Invasive AI Lie Detection [0.0]
  We argue why artificial intelligence-based, non-invasive lie detection technologies are likely to experience a rapid advancement in the coming years. Legal and popular perspectives are reviewed to evaluate the potential for these technologies to cause societal harm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-16T08:09:38Z)
• Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) Amid the Advent of Autonomous AI Legal Reasoning [0.0]
  Legal Judgment Prediction is a longstanding and open topic in the theory and practice-of-law. Various methods and techniques to predict legal cases and judicial actions have emerged over time. The advent of AI Legal Reasoning will have a pronounced impact on how LJP is performed and its predictive accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-29T00:12:42Z)
• How Does NLP Benefit Legal System: A Summary of Legal Artificial Intelligence [81.04070052740596]
  Legal Artificial Intelligence (LegalAI) focuses on applying the technology of artificial intelligence, especially natural language processing, to benefit tasks in the legal domain. This paper introduces the history, the current state, and the future directions of research in LegalAI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-25T14:45:15Z)
• Predicted by Orwell: A discourse on the gradual shift in electronic surveillance law [0.18275108630751835]
  This report looks at human rights legislation in three jurisdictions. It compares and contrasts the protections that are available from illegal search and seizure. It discusses the processes that have led to a gradual yet pervasive weakening of those laws in all three nations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-24T08:33:04Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.