Nia Cross Castelly

Last week, our Senior Director of Innovation Sam Moore had the privilege of attending Legal Innovators California in San Francisco and participating in the panel "Harnessing the Power of Generative AI in Legal Practice.” When Sam debriefed with colleagues and fellow attendees Anusia Gillespie and Ian Gillespie, MBA CSPO, they all noticed a similar theme throughout the event: 🚀 junior associates need “future skills,” and they need them now. 🚀 So, what are future skills? ❓ Where do law firms currently stand when it comes to addressing this urgent need? ⏰ And, how can they take a more proactive approach? ✔ Check out Sam's blog post to learn more: https://lnkd.in/gffEPSkW #legalinnovatorscalifornia #juniorassociatetraining #futureskills #generativeai #genai

17

The Massachusetts Attorney General released guidance on AI developers, suppliers, and users' obligations under Massachusetts consumer protection, anti-discrimination, and data security laws. Nothing earth-shattering in the advisory notice and another example of how existing laws are being used to regulate AI. The advisory presents the below non-exhaustive list of acts and practices that may be considered to be unfair and deceptive under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act: - Falsely advertising the quality, value, or usability of AI systems - Supplying an AI system that is defective, unusable, or impractical for the purpose advertised - Misrepresenting the reliability, manner of performance, safety, or condition of an AI system - Offering for sale or use an AI system in breach of warranty, in that the system is not fit for the ordinary purposes for which such systems are used, or that is unfit for the specific purpose for which it is sold where the supplier knows of such purpose - Misrepresenting audio or video content of a person for the purpose of deceiving another to engage in a business transaction or supply personal information as if to a trusted business partner as in the case of deepfakes, voice cloning, or chatbots used to engage in fraud  - Failing to comply with Massachusetts statutes, rules, regulations or laws, meant for the protection of the public’s health, safety or welfare 

27

The brain is the new privacy frontier: Responding to developing technologies in the neurotech space, a number of American states have amended their privacy laws to include "neural data" in their definition of sensitive personal information. Some require opt-in consent for its collection, others simply the possibility for a data subject to opt out. Some have included employees' neural data in the definition, others not - with varying implications for privacy protection:

7

Lots of interesting observations about how hallucinations/confabulations can be reduced by certain architectures in this article, but here's what I'm wondering about this morning: Suppose the models do end up solving these problems through what is, in effect, a division of labor: Models are specialized to answer queries within a defined subdomain. Do we then develop new models that are good at integrating answers across subdomains into a full solution that represents the best answer across domains? Even if we do, it seems like it will have to be humans that are playing that role in the near term. +1 for those who are good at context recognition and integrating perspectives across different domains — specialists in generalization. https://lnkd.in/g5RMaEx6

14

5 Comments

“Under the hood, these new legal #AI tools use retrieval-augmented generation (#RAG) to produce their results, a method that many tout as a potential solution to the #Hallucination #Problem. In theory, RAG allows a system to first retrieve the relevant source material and then use it to generate the correct response. In practice, however, we show that even RAG systems are not hallucination-free.” https://lnkd.in/eZMVcQ46

1

Check out this important update! The FTC and the People of the State of California are taking action against NGL Labs, LLC and its associates for deceptive practices, including collecting personal information from children under 13 without parental consent. It's crucial to ensure that children are protected online. #FTC #California #AI #OnlineSafety #ProtectingChildren https://lnkd.in/eZ2Hzyri

5

In this week's episode of the Mobile Dev Memo podcast, I discuss the American Privacy Rights Act (APRA) and its potential impact on the digital ecosystem with Alan Chapell, a lawyer and digital privacy expert. To listen, search for "Mobile Dev Memo" in your podcast platform of choice.

11

1 Comment

I found this Littler article regarding the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright and its impact on potential federal legislation regarding AI. It's interesting in light of advanced efforts at the state level (e.g., in Colorado and, to an extent, California) that would seemingly withstand some of the non-delegation concerns raised in Loper Bright. Worth a read. https://lnkd.in/dj_E2ipA #ai #artificialintelligence #ailaw #loperbright #technology #techlaw #tech #regulation #policy #sb1047

5

Every week, we hear a question from a customer along the lines of "Are GenAI models polluting my code?" I'm thrilled to announce that I'll be speaking on a panel at IP Counsel Café on this intersection of generative AI and open source risk! During this luncheon and discussion, we'll be answering questions such as: - How are people using and deploying AI / AI strategies? - How do you manage and reduce 3rd party risk from open source and code-gen models? - What are the big open questions relevant to 3rd party risk today?  - How is your IP and open source strategy changing today and what are the best practices? - What are people doing about Regulation and SBOMs? Join me and my co-panelists Peter Jovanovic, Helen Li, John Tsai, Nidhi N., Jonathan Torres, Andy Song and Seong Pae to explore these crucial topics and uncover actionable insights to navigate the evolving landscape of open source risk and #GenAI.

54

5 Comments

Excellent discussion by Roy Wepner, Esq. explaining why a majority of Federal Circuit judges in a recent #patent case (Dragon IP vs. DISH Network) erred by imposing a bright-line rule barring recovery of attorneys' fees for expenditures made in IPR (inter partes review) proceedings within the USPTO. This bright-line rule reads as follows: "In cases where a party voluntarily elects to pursue an invalidity challenge through IPR proceedings, we see no basis for awarding IPR fees under [35 U.S.C.] § 285." Mr. Wepner provides insightful analysis as to why the majority's decision in the Dragon IP case creates a precedential conflict with a 1988 Federal Circuit decision. Additionally, a dissenting DISTRICT COURT judge, sitting by designation on the Dragon IP panel, got it absolutely right in explaining why "[t]o categorically preclude recovery of IPR fees in this circumstance is inconsistent with § 285 or the intent of IPR itself."

2

🚨 UPDATE Governor Newsom Vetoes California AI Safety Bill and Announces New AI Initiatives 🚨 Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed the California Artificial Intelligence (AI) Safety Bill, which was seen as a potential blueprint for national AI legislation. The Governor’s veto, however, highlights a critical tension between regulating the use of AI without stifling innovation. In his veto statement, Newsom expressed concerns that the AI Safety Bill did not adequately differentiate between low- and high-risk AI applications: “While well-intentioned, [the AI Safety Bill] does not take into account whether an AI system is deployed in high-risk environments, involves critical decision-making or the use of sensitive data. Instead, the bill applies stringent standards to even the most basic functions — so long as a large system deploys it. I do not believe this is the best approach to protecting the public from real threats posed by the technology.” The same day, Governor Newsom announced a series of initiatives to related to AI. Franklin Chou Jason Epstein 🔗 Read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/gJ9GzPaT The Nelson Mullins' AI Task Force will continue to provide additional insight on both domestic and international matters across various industries spanning both the public and private sectors. Franklin Chou Jason Epstein Geof Vickers Daniel Lumm Johnathan H. Taylor Joe Damon Leslie Green Jackson Parese Jack Pringle, CIPP-US John Heitmann Steve Augustino #AI #ArtificialIntelligence #PrivacyLaw #TechRegulation #CaliforniaLaw #AIsafety #LegalInsights

2

I’m interested in how AI is impacting law practice. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued guidance on how to determine inventorship when AI was involved in creating the invention. In 2022, in Thaler v. Vidal, the Federal Circuit held that “only a natural person can be an inventor, so AI cannot be.”  So, how can something developed by AI be patented? ·      The guidance reaffirms the Federal Circuit decision: Named inventors must be “natural persons.” A non-human, such an AI system, cannot be listed as inventor, even if it was “instrumental” in creating the invention. ·      A person named as inventor must make a “significant contribution” to any AI-assisted invention. ·      This is determined by existing inventorship law: The inventor must contribute in some significant way to the invention’s conception or reduction to practice. ·      USPTO gives an example: A person who merely 1) recognizes the need for a new design to solve a specific problem, 2) prompts an AI system to create a design, and 3) reviews the design outputted by the AI system, has not made a significant contribution. ·      On the other hand, a significant contribution “could be shown by the way the person constructs the prompt in view of a specific problem to elicit a particular solution from the AI system.” ·      These distinctions could be difficult to make in practice. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in real world examples as AI develops and its use in creating inventions increases. ·      The USPTO guidance tells us that inventors using AI should be prepared to demonstrate, with supporting documentation, the specific things they did to contribute to the invention and how AI was used to assist. https://lnkd.in/g6gx_eTV #artificialintelligence #technology #AI

6

This is a good post that highlights 15 of hundreds of regulatory and legislative actions related to AI. Since so many laws impact the use of AI that are focused on AI, it is imperative to remember that all existing statutes and regulations be analyzed through an AI lens. All companies and family offices need to recognize the full universe of potential legal implications. In particular, family offices and other investors need to employ third parties to ensure claims about AI are actually true. #artificialintelligence #ai #AIregulation #AIlaw #generalcounsel #familyoffice #investing #duediligence

1

California is on the verge of passing what would be the most comprehensive regulation of AI in the United States. Read our blog post about SB 1047: https://lnkd.in/eDqmnSpp

6

The "AI detection tool," "latent disclosure," and other elements of the new California #AI Transparency Act (#CAITA) appear designed to help safeguard the possibility of "reality" on the Internet. That reality is already challenged by the ease of broadcasting unsourced misinformation and by echo chambers resulting from algorithm-driven content delivery. However, #GenAI-powered disinformation and social engineering through #deepfake videos, images, and voice recordings could truly undermine our ability to discern fact from fiction. This represents a critical #cybersecurity risk for individuals and organizations -- indeed, for society -- relying on the Internet. I'll be interested to see how CAITA's implemented over the coming year and whether AI-detection technology can deliver. 🤞

13

1 Comment

SF Bay Area Superior Courtroom Technology Status: Here's the scoop on the big 3: 1. San Francisco -- Large monitor with Zoom webcam, reserved for Court use. You cannot connect via HDMI to the existing system. Although you can request to share exhibits via Zoom, the monitor is not adequate for jury/courtroom viewing. A full trial presentation equipment setup is highly recommended. Wi-Fi device (hotspot) recommended. 2. Santa Clara -- Monitors installed, adequate for jury viewing. You cannot connect via HDMI cables. MS Teams is the default remote platform, and evidence may be displayed with it. Not as pretty as Zoom, but it works. Additional monitors for counsel recommended, and Wi-Fi device (hotspot) highly recommended. NOTE: This is for the newer courthouse. If you're assigned to the old courthouse, see #1 above. 3. Alameda -- Monitors installed, -plug and play evidence presentation over Zoom. Laptops are even included on counsel tables. Wi-Fi works fine, although you may want to bring a Wi-Fi device (hotspot) for additional security. Not much needed here, other than trial tech's personal setup, possibly extra audio for depo clips. Might want to add a large projector screen for better viewing. All of these are rolling trials full speed ahead, so make sure you are "Trial Ready" with local support as needed. NorCal trial techs are in high demand right now, and equipment rentals are limited, so plan ahead.

39

16 Comments

new blog post: Could Oi Ocha's ad have successfully navigated around California Civil Code Section 3344(a) if Shohei Ohtani had not endorsed it? Explore our latest blog for insights on this intriguing legal question! #Law #Marketing #CelebrityEndorsements #ShoheiOhtani #intellectualproperty #eichenstein #eichiplaw #dodgers #MLB #oiocha

4

Excited to speak as a panelist at CenterForce USA's conference on "Developing a Comprehensive Corporate AI Policy: Legal, Ethical, and Compliance Considerations." This Thursday, May 30 in Chicago, I'll be joining experts 👉 Michael Booden, JD, CIPP/US, CIPP/E, of HUB International 👉 Donna Haddad of IBM 👉 Julie Honor of Thompson Hine LLP and 👉 David Oberst of The Boler Company® for an insightful discussion of best practices for developing a sound corporate #AIPolicy! #AI #AIPolicy #LegalTech #Compliance #dataprotection #datasecurity #cybersecurity #riskmanagement

7