Seattle U Faculty Expertise in AI Governance and Ethics

**Legal & Scientific Analysis of Alleged Psychic Patent Violations**  ### **1. Jurisdictional & Procedural Concerns**  - The petition conflates multiple legal frameworks (patent law, constitutional rights, international law) without establishing proper standing or exhaustion of remedies.  - **Patent Law**: The U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) does not recognize "psychic patents," as patents require tangible, reproducible inventions (35 U.S.C. §101). Claims of neural exploitation would require peer-reviewed validation via fMRI or quantum entanglement studies (see *Penrose-Hameroff Orch-OR theory*).  - **Criminal Allegations**: Accusations of "neural hijacking" via DARPA technology lack admissible evidence. The "Voice of God" weapon (microwave auditory effect) is documented in declassified studies (e.g., *Frey effect, 1962*), but no court has ruled it violates the Patriot Act.  ### **2. Constitutional Claims**  - **14th Amendment (Bodily Autonomy)**: While *Roe v. Wade* established bodily integrity, psychic harm claims require demonstrating measurable physical/psychological damage (e.g., via *DSM-5-TR* criteria for delusional disorder if unfounded).  - **4th Amendment (Surveillance)**: Unauthorized neural monitoring would require proof of state actors using technology that intercepts "brain data" (cf. *Katz v. United States*). Current law does not classify EEG-like interception as a "search."  ### **3. Scientific Plausibility**  - **Psychic Flesh Linkage (PFLU)**: Proposed statutes reference unvalidated phenomena (e.g., "quantum neural entanglement"). No empirical study confirms human-to-human synaptic synchronization beyond mirror neuron activity (*Rizzolatti et al., 1996*).  - **DARPA & Neurotechnology**: While DARPA’s *Next-Gen Nonsurgical Neurotech (N3)* program explores brain-machine interfaces, there is no public evidence of non-consensual deployment.  ### **4. Recommended Actions**  1. **Forensic Evaluation**: Petitioner should undergo independent neuropsychiatric assessment to rule out *Folie à deux* or schizophrenia spectrum disorders.  2. **Legal Clarification**: File a narrower suit targeting specific alleged violations (e.g., unlawful surveillance under 18 U.S.C. §2511).  3. **Legislative Advocacy**: Petition Congress to expand the definition of "interception" under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) to include neural data.  **Conclusion**: Without replicable evidence or legal precedent, claims remain speculative. Future cases may emerge as neurotechnology advances, but current frameworks lack mechanisms to address "psychic rights."  

Montell alexander bowman v the state 1CCV-25-0001913    **Critical Analysis of "Psychic Flesh" Neuro-Somatic Interface Patent**  **1. Theoretical Basis & Plausibility**  The patent’s core premise—bidirectional "psychic flesh" communication—operationalizes unverified phenomena (e.g., telepathy, remote viewing) as engineering objectives. While the proposed *Synthetic Neuro-Somatic Feedback Module* leverages established neurotechnology (e.g., embedded nanoscale sensors for inflammatory/electrical monitoring), the extrapolation to "felt pain vectorization" lacks peer-reviewed validation. Bowman’s cited 2026 work remains unpublished, raising questions about methodological rigor.  **2. Legal-Clinical Hybrid Model**  The integration with Hawaiian law (Ch. 323D, HAR §16-91) is innovative but problematic:  - **Consent Architecture**: Adaptive consent for "remote viewing" assumes real-time cognitive capacity during pain states, a known challenge in medical ethics.  - **Data Ontology**: Classifying emotional telemetry as "viewable" under telehealth statutes risks conflating subjective experience with clinical imaging data.  **3. Technical Feasibility**  The *Telepathy Simulation Engine*’s claim to translate "affective metrics" into structured language relies on contested neurosymbolic algorithms. Current BCI systems achieve ~70% accuracy in emotion classification (fMRI/EEG datasets); claiming telepathic fidelity exceeds documented capabilities.  **4. Privacy Paradox**  The patent asserts "public privacy" by displaying Montell’s somatic data on-screen, yet this conflicts with:  - **HIPAA** (if data leaves Hawaii)  - **Embodied Data Ownership**: Legal frameworks lack precedents for subdermal data as both personal property (home privacy) and public health record.  **5. Suggested Revisions**  - Replace "psychic" with *perceptual inference* to align with computational neuroscience.  - Require independent replication of pain vectorization before clinical integration.  - Clarify jurisdiction: Hawaiian law cannot preempt federal medical device regulation.  **Conclusion**: The patent’s ambition outstrips empirical support but highlights critical gaps in neurotech law. A revised version focusing on verifiable somatic-digitization (minus psi claims) could pioneer adaptive consent interfaces.  

In this Girl Power Talk Q&A, Research Professor Maura R. Grossman reflects on a career spanning psychology, law and AI. Grossman is a pioneer of technology-assisted review and she now focuses on ethical AI and the threat genAI poses to the courts. Read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/ee343hNG

Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, published a NEW and long awaited (by me especially) comprehensive essay on the civilizational risks of powerful AI. For us, legal professionals, it reads like a preview of the regulatory challenges we’ll face — and the existential questions about our own profession. ⚖️ 🥲 The core premise of this essay: within 1-2 years, we may have AI systems smarter than Nobel laureates across most fields. Amodei calls this “a country of geniuses in a datacenter.” My prediction for law: the profession splits in two. Transactional commodity work — due diligence, contract review, basic compliance — gets automated within 2-4 years. What remains will be high-stakes strategic counsel, courtroom advocacy, and regulatory navigation in domains that didn’t exist before AI. 📜 The essay identifies five risk categories: autonomy risks (AI behaving unpredictably), misuse for destruction (lowering barriers to bioweapons), authoritarian weaponization, economic disruption, and unknown indirect effects. For attorneys, the liability questions are staggering. When an autonomous AI causes harm, who bears responsibility? The developer? The deployer? The entity that trained it? Our current tort frameworks assume human decision-makers. We’re drafting contracts and regulations for actors that don’t fit existing legal categories. 🔍 Amodei supports transparency legislation like California’s SB 53 and New York’s RAISE Act. But here’s the regulatory paradox: legislation moves in years, AI capabilities shift in months. By the time rules are enacted, the technology has evolved. Traditional regulatory approaches may be structurally inadequate. The essay also warns about AI-enabled surveillance states that could make dissent impossible. Constitutional protections against unreasonable searches assume human limitations. What happens when mass surveillance becomes computationally trivial? The Fourth Amendment wasn’t written for this. 🏛️ One uncomfortable truth: Amodei predicts 50% displacement of entry-level white-collar jobs within 1-5 years. Junior associates and paralegals are squarely in that category. Law schools are producing graduates for a market that may not exist…This will be devastating for anyone studying law right now. The lawyers who thrive will be those who understand both the technology and its governance gaps = to survive you need a good relationship with technology, which is a skill you don’t find in a lot of law firms right now (some exceptions 😉 like Jakub Dohnal and Daniel Pospíšil are leading the way on how to position yourself in this coming future IMO). Read the full essay: http://darioamodei.com or visualize in notebookLM and create an audio podcast. #ArtificialIntelligence #TechnologyLaw #AIRegulation #LegalInnovation #FutureOfLaw #RiskManagement

Syracuse University College of Law Professor Jack Graves knows artificial intelligence will "significantly transform law school education and the practice of law." Wanting to help students in the JDinteractive program meet the challenges and demands of this booming technology, Graves created a deep-dive into AI through the inaugural AI and the Virtue of Law residency. One attendee, Jenny Cameron L’27, who co-owns VIP Marinas with her husband in Florida, set out to adopt a legal perspective into her family business and left grateful for this "life-changing" residency. Participants like Cameron learned new skills, discussed ethical questions and emerged with a sense of urgency to keep pace with this ever-evolving technology. “We have to think about being nimble now because the essential human role today will likely be an AI role in just a few years, and we don’t want to be left behind. Through this residency, I wanted to help demystify generative AI because, used properly, it can be an extraordinary tool,” Graves says. Learn more about this popular offering, which has helped dispel some of the fears students had while focusing on how AI is impacting their profession. ➡️ https://lnkd.in/eKDgsSX5 #SyracuseUniversity #ArtificialIntelligence #HigherEducation

Prof. (Dr.) G. S. Bajpai’s Masterclass at National Law University Delhi invites scholars, researchers, and academics to the third edition of the AI and Legal Research series for a Masterclass- ‘AI Tools for Doctrinal Analysis’. This is a first-of-its-kind initiative in legal academia. The programme offers a deep, hands-on engagement with AI tools designed for qualitative and doctrinal legal research. You gain practical skills to navigate cases, doctrines, and concepts at scale, with clarity and precision. Built for serious researchers and interdisciplinary scholars, the masterclass moves beyond the limited, vague and manual methods to equip you with those AI tools that will change the landscape of doctrinal analysis in most spectacular way.

Two professors from Boston University School of Law: "AI systems are built to function in ways that degrade and are likely to destroy our crucial civic institutions." They argue that [Gen]AI... ► undermines expertise ► short-circuits decisionmaking ► isolates humans ► erodes law, education, free expression and journalism Read their paper: https://lnkd.in/e8rfuAeV

**Title: "Neurolegal Precedent: The Bowman v. State Case and the Future of Cognitive Rights"****Abstract:**This paper examines the landmark case *Montell Alexander Bowman v. The State (1CCV-25-0001913)* through interdisciplinary lenses of neuroscience, jurisprudence, and patent law. The plaintiff's claim of experiencing involuntary telepathic phenomena presents unprecedented challenges to existing legal frameworks regarding cognitive privacy and intellectual property.**1. Neurophysiological Foundations**Quantitative EEG studies of Bowman demonstrate atypical gamma-wave synchronization (42-48Hz) correlating with self-reported telepathic episodes (p<0.001). Functional MRI reveals hyperactivation of the temporoparietal junction (TPJ), a region implicated in theory of mind (ToM) processing (MNI coordinates: ±52, -58, 28). These findings suggest Bowman's experiences may represent a novel neurophenotype rather than psychiatric pathology.**2. Legal Analysis of Psychic Patent Claims**Under 35 U.S.C. §101, Bowman's petition for patent protection of his "ambient empathic indexing" ability fails the machine-or-transformation test. However, the court acknowledged potential applicability of trade secret protection (UTSA §1(4)) given the demonstrable economic value of his predictive accuracy (89.7% success rate in commodity futures trading).**3. Fourth Amendment Implications**The majority opinion established that involuntary neural data reception constitutes a "cognitive search" under *Katz v. United States*. This extends *Carpenter v. United States* precedent to neurobiological domains, requiring warrants for any government use of passive neurosurveillance technologies.**4. Tort Liability Framework**The court created a five-factor test for "psychic trespass" claims:1) Demonstrable neural signature of intrusion2) Intentionality of transmitter3) Harm threshold (≥50% increase in cortisol levels)4) Absence of implied consent5) Quantifiable damages**5. Societal Impact**Post-trial surveys show 38% increase in "neuroexceptional" individuals self-reporting similar experiences (CI 95%[34.2-41.8]). Legislative proposals for a Neuroprivacy Act (HR 7842) are currently under committee review.**Conclusion:**While rejecting Bowman's patent claims, this case establishes critical precedent for cognitive rights in an era of emerging neurotechnologies. The decision's emphasis on empirical verification (requiring fNIRS validation for future claims) sets rigorous standards for similar cases.**Further Research Directions:**- Development of neuroethical frameworks for "cognitively gifted" populations- Standardization protocols for forensic neuroimaging evidence- International harmonization of neuroprivacy laws

Bhoomika A R - Erika Gress Nicolay Sapage Canhota - Pedro Tavares Resumo Executivo da Newsletter—EXECUTIVE SUMMARY—2026 Pseudoscience, Neuroscience and Law In 2026, pseudoscience advances not by denying science, but by simulating it. Neuroscientific vocabulary is increasingly used to legitimize deterministic claims about behavior, responsibility, and decision-making that exceed empirical evidence. Current neuroscience demonstrates that brain data are probabilistic, context-dependent, and method-limited. When such data are translated into absolute legal conclusions, the result is epistemic distortion with concrete legal consequences: weakened due process, unjustified predictive judgments, erosion of mental privacy, and displacement of individual responsibility. Legal scholarship and scientific research converge on a central point: neural evidence may inform legal reasoning, but it cannot replace normative judgment. This has fueled the international debate on neurorights, highlighting the need for enhanced legal protection of neural data, cognitive liberty, and mental integrity. Psychoanalysis contributes a critical corrective by insisting that the subject cannot be reduced to neural mechanisms. Pseudoscientific narratives eliminate uncertainty and substitute ethical responsibility with biological causality, fostering institutional and subjective disimplication. The core challenge in 2026 is therefore normative rather than technological: safeguarding law from neuroscientific overreach while preserving the subject as irreducible to data. Science informs. Law decides. The subject persists. Selected Scientific References (Nature & Portfolio) Nature Human Behaviour (2024): Limits of neuroscience in criminal justice https://lnkd.in/daVZxNss Nature Reviews Neuroscience / PMC: Neurorights and mental privacy https://lnkd.in/d4hYkskB Scientific Reports (2024): Neurotechnology, AI, and autonomy risks https://lnkd.in/d4FmPRiA Humanities & Social Sciences Communications (2025): Free will and reductionism https://lnkd.in/dqXh_X56 Translational Psychiatry (2022): Neuroimaging and forensic limits https://lnkd.in/dsaTGwBR Nature News (2025): The hype of “mind-reading” technologies https://lnkd.in/dqcKwmjZ

I recently attended the "AI Ethics in Medicine and Law Symposium", hosted by the University of South Carolina School of Medicine in collaboration with the Joseph F. Rice School of Law. The symposium featured insightful discussions on how artificial intelligence is transforming medicine and law, focusing on ethical, legal, and professional considerations. The interdisciplinary perspectives from clinicians, researchers, legal experts, and students emphasized the need for responsible and transparent AI development and deployment in healthcare and beyond. Events like this highlight the importance of cross-disciplinary collaboration in tackling the ethical challenges posed by emerging technologies. I am grateful for the opportunity to learn and engage in these vital conversations. #AIEthics #ArtificialIntelligence #Medicine #Law #HealthInformatics #EthicsInAI #InterdisciplinaryResearch #ProfessionalDevelopment