Should Writers Be Required to Certify that their Articles Were Not Written By an AI Program?

On occasion, I have indicated that an article I published was not written by an AI program. After this experience, I will do so with everything I write.

This evening, I had an idea for my Substack, Legally Speaking. I wanted to write an essay about pardons being for sale. I know more than I can say on this subject (you’ll just have to trust me) and thought that a good illustration might be the recent pardon of the founder of the Silk Road website Ross Ulbricht and the crypto currency fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried who is currently trying to move heaven and earth to get a pardon from Trump. But as I sat down to write, I thought, what if I asked my AI to write an article based upon prompts I gave it and in my style as reflected in past Legally Speaking essays? This is the result. I think it came out pretty darn good. Maybe even better than anything I could have written. But it begs the question: Should writers be required (by their publishers, not by a law) to certify that their writing is really the product of their mind, not some artificial entity? I have done so on occasion, and I am going to do so in everything I publish going forward, except comments on other people’s posts—I don’t want to get ideologically ridiculous.

It also makes me wonder: how prevalent is the practice of publishing articles actually written by an AI program? And is there anything wrong with it if it’s the result of the creative process of drafting interesting prompts? It is certainly not plagiarism. Read this and give me your thoughts. [NOTE: this paragraph was not written by an Artificial Entity and is totally the product of my own mind—which of course a sentient AE would say!]

The Tangled Web of Justice: Comparing Ulbricht's Pardon with the Specter of SBF's Potential Clemency

The recent pardon of Ross Ulbricht, the creator of the Silk Road website, by President Trump has reignited a complex debate about justice, punishment, and the limits of executive clemency. Ulbricht, convicted in 2015 on seven counts related to his operation of the dark web marketplace that facilitated over $183 million in illegal drug sales using Bitcoin (Al Jazeera), had been serving a life sentence plus 40 years. Trump, in announcing the pardon, called Ulbricht’s punishment "ridiculous" and bizarrely linked his prosecution to those he accused of weaponizing the government against him (Congressman Lloyd Doggett).

This act of clemency, fulfilling a pledge to libertarians and cryptocurrency enthusiasts who long advocated for Ulbricht's release (Cato Institute), now casts a long shadow over the potential future of another high-profile convicted felon in the cryptocurrency space: Sam Bankman-Fried.

Bankman-Fried, the founder of the now-collapsed FTX exchange, was convicted in 2023 of seven counts of wire and securities fraud and money laundering related to the misappropriation of billions of dollars of customer funds (The Independent). He received a 25-year prison sentence and is currently appealing his conviction.

While the crimes of Ulbricht and Bankman-Fried both intersect with the world of cryptocurrency, their nature and scale differ significantly. Ulbricht’s Silk Road facilitated a vast illegal drug trade, a crime with direct and often devastating consequences for individuals and communities. Prosecutors also alleged, though he was never convicted of such, that Ulbricht solicited murders related to his operation (Cato Institute). Bankman-Fried’s crimes, while also involving substantial financial harm, centered on the fraudulent misuse of customer deposits within his cryptocurrency exchange.

Despite these differences, a narrative appears to be emerging that could pave the way for a potential pardon for Bankman-Fried. Recent reports indicate that Bankman-Fried and his allies are actively lobbying for a pardon from President Trump (PYMNTS.com). This effort reportedly includes reaching out to Washington D.C. lobbyists and consulting with Kory Langhofer, an Arizona lawyer who worked on Trump's previous presidential campaigns (The Independent).

Disturbingly, there are suggestions that this lobbying may extend to direct engagement with Trump's inner circle. While concrete evidence remains elusive, the New York Times and other outlets have reported on the efforts of Bankman-Fried’s parents, both Stanford Law professors with Democratic ties, who are reportedly consulting with Langhofer. Whether this consultation has translated into direct contact with Trump or his staff at Mar-a-Lago remains unconfirmed, but the possibility certainly raises eyebrows and warrants careful scrutiny.

The pursuit of a pardon is not unprecedented for individuals with connections or perceived political alignment. Consider the case of Philip Esformes, a Florida healthcare executive convicted in 2019 of a staggering $1.3 billion Medicare and Medicaid fraud scheme. He was serving a 20-year sentence when, in December 2020, President Trump commuted his sentence after only roughly three and a half years in prison (CBS News). While the White House statement at the time cited Esformes' devotion to prayer and declining health, the commutation of such a massive fraudster so soon after conviction raised serious questions about the criteria and motivations behind such acts of clemency.

Examining past pardons can offer insights, though not definitive proof, into potential strategies. News reports have detailed how some seeking pardons have leveraged political connections, offered endorsements, or even had prominent figures advocate on their behalf (PBS NewsHour). In Bankman-Fried's case, his recent jailhouse interview with former Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson, where he praised Republicans and claimed a shift away from Democrats (The Independent), appears to be a calculated move to curry favor with the former president and his base.

Furthermore, Bankman-Fried co-authored an opinion piece in The Washington Post supporting Trump's proposed sovereign wealth fund, another potential attempt to align himself with the former president's policy positions (Slate).

The power to pardon is a constitutionally granted prerogative (Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution), intended as a tool for justice and mercy (Protect Democracy). However, the perception that pardons can be bought or influenced by political expediency undermines the very principles of justice and equal application of the law.

As the legal process unfolds for Sam Bankman-Fried, and as the echoes of Ross Ulbricht's pardon continue to reverberate, the question of whether political connections and perceived alignment with the former president will play a role in his fate remains a serious concern. The meticulous pursuit of justice demands transparency and adherence to established legal principles, not the whisper of backroom deals in the halls of power or the gilded rooms of Mar-a-Lago. Any indication that the scales of justice might be tipped by political maneuvering rather than the merits of the case would be a profound disservice to the victims of Bankman-Fried’s crimes and a dangerous precedent for the rule of law.