Yiyang Mei

Michael Broyde, Yiyang Mei

Since the introduction of Generative AI (GenAI) in 2022, its ability to simulate human intelligence and generate content has sparked both enthusiasm and concern. While much criticism focuses on AI's potential to perpetuate bias, create emotional dissonance, displace jobs, and raise ethical questions, these concerns often overlook the practical benefits of AI, particularly in legal contexts. This article examines the integration of AI into arbitration, arguing that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) allows parties to contractually choose AI-driven arbitration, despite traditional reservations. The article makes three key contributions: (1) It shifts the focus from debates over AI's personhood to the practical aspects of incorporating AI into arbitration, asserting that AI can effectively serve as an arbitrator if both parties agree; (2) It positions arbitration as an ideal starting point for broader AI adoption in the legal field, given its flexibility and the autonomy it grants parties to define their standards of fairness; and (3) It outlines future research directions, emphasizing the importance of empirically comparing AI and human arbitration, which could lead to the development of distinct systems. By advocating for the use of AI in arbitration, this article underscores the importance of respecting contractual autonomy and creating an environment that allows AI's potential to be fully realized. Drawing on the insights of Judge Richard Posner, the article argues that the ethical obligations of AI in arbitration should be understood within the context of its technological strengths and the voluntary nature of arbitration agreements. Ultimately, it calls for a balanced, open-minded approach to AI in arbitration, recognizing its potential to enhance the efficiency, fairness, and flexibility of dispute resolution

Yiyang Mei

Since its introduction in 2022, Generative AI has significantly impacted the art world, from winning state art fairs to creating complex videos from simple prompts. Amid this renaissance, a pivotal issue emerges: should users of Generative AI be recognized as authors eligible for copyright protection? The Copyright Office, in its March 2023 Guidance, argues against this notion. By comparing the prompts to clients' instructions for commissioned art, the Office denies users authorship due to their limited role in the creative process. This Article challenges this viewpoint and advocates for the recognition of Generative AI users who incorporate these tools into their creative endeavors. It argues that the current policy fails to consider the intricate and dynamic interaction between Generative AI users and the models, where users actively influence the output through a process of adjustment, refinement, selection, and arrangement. Rather than dismissing the contributions generated by AI, this Article suggests a simplified and streamlined registration process that acknowledges the role of AI in creation. This approach not only aligns with the constitutional goal of promoting the progress of science and useful arts but also encourages public engagement in the creative process, which contributes to the pool of training data for AI. Moreover, it advocates for a flexible framework that evolves alongside technological advancements while ensuring safety and public interest. In conclusion, by examining text-to-image generators and addressing misconceptions about Generative AI and user interaction, this Article calls for a regulatory framework that adapts to technological developments and safeguards public interests

Yiyang Mei, Matthew Sag

Whether and how to regulate AI is now a central question of governance. Across academic, policy, and international legal circles, the European Union is widely treated as the normative leader in this space. Its regulatory framework, anchored in the General Data Protection Regulation, the Digital Services and Markets Acts, and the AI Act, is often portrayed as a principled model grounded in fundamental rights. This Article challenges that assumption. We argue that the rights-based narrative surrounding EU AI regulation mischaracterizes the logic of its institutional design. While rights language pervades EU legal instruments, its function is managerial, not foundational. These rights operate as tools of administrative ordering, used to mitigate technological disruption, manage geopolitical risk, and preserve systemic balance, rather than as expressions of moral autonomy or democratic consent. Drawing on comparative institutional analysis, we situate EU AI governance within a longer tradition of legal ordering shaped by the need to coordinate power across fragmented jurisdictions. We contrast this approach with the American model, which reflects a different regulatory logic rooted in decentralized authority, sectoral pluralism, and a constitutional preference for innovation and individual autonomy. Through case studies in five key domains -- data privacy, cybersecurity, healthcare, labor, and disinformation -- we show that EU regulation is not meaningfully rights-driven, as is often claimed. It is instead structured around the containment of institutional risk. Our aim is not to endorse the American model but to reject the presumption that the EU approach reflects a normative ideal that other nations should uncritically adopt. The EU model is best understood as a historically contingent response to its own political conditions, not a template for others to blindly follow.