Law schools are being challenged to recognize and adapt to the advent of AI in the legal industry by infusing relevant learning materials into their syllabi, says Megan Ma, research fellow and assistant director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science, and Technology and Stanford Center for Legal Informatics (CodeX). She suggests lessons should embrace comprehension of AI’s capabilities, its limitations, and the moral obligations for lawyers who apply AI. You can read more about her argument in her piece in Bloomberg Law.
In an interview with Bloomberg Law, Matthew Butterick, a lawyer, typographer, and coder, shares his experiences around IP lawsuits against Copilot — an AI tool developed via collaborations between Microsoft, OpenAI, and GitHub, and trained using open-source code. Butterick believes that his professional life as a programmer, designer, and writer could be severely affected if the AI situation remains unchecked.
The Financial Times has closely examined Microsoft’s multibillion-dollar “minority economic interest” in OpenAI and the unique financial arrangements OpenAI has with its backers. Rather than having conventional equity shares, investors receive a portion of profits made through a specific AI subsidiary, as Microsoft and OpenAI increasingly attract the attention of regulators in the UK.
The Guardian reports on a judgement from the UK’s highest court, finding that AI cannot be deemed as an inventor for securing patent rights. The verdict was handed down after US-based technologist Dr. Stephen Thaler endeavored to list an AI called DABUS as an inventor of a food or drink container and a light beacon, supposing that he had rights over the AI’s inventions.
Lastly, a strategy known as Red Teaming could be pivotal in countering threats associated with quickly growing AI adoption, argue Adam Harrison and Nebu Varghese of FTI Consulting. The tactic mimics a cybersecurity attack to expose potential vulnerabilities and fine-tune defense practices. Read their full discussion in Legaltech News.