Written by Andreyan
It is inherent to the human nature to greed for more money. There are endless stories of people’s attempts to get rich or go down in a blaze of glory in their attempt. Think of Jordan Belford. His story fascinated so many people under the skillful direction and production of Martin Scorsese. However, humans are humans and have weaknesses. They show emotions and they may be the cause of their downfall, as it happened with Mr. Belford. A solution is there, though, artificial intelligence lacks emotions and is capable of producing far more information than a normal human being. This brings two extremely advantageous uses of A.I. at the stock market.
On the one hand it can process a lot more information than a human brain for a short period of time, so it can make better shot calls on the market. Thus, it actually can predict the market better than human experts. A Japanese A.I. predicted the market correctly 68% of the time compared to “mere” 48% by the human experts. When the A.I. buys and sells stocks it creates contracts, but is it acting in the name of the company and is just a “mere” medium of the will of the company to create legal relations on market? Or is it a legal representative (agent) that has its own will and acts in the name of the company, given that the A.I. process a lot more information per time unit than a human and its decision will be faster than a human’s. Thus, what it does can be even a surprise for the owner of the A.I. However, when an A.I. is learning it can accidentally learn some shady schemes. So when the scheme is discovered, who is going to be blamed? The company using the A.I. to profit? The scientists that created the A.I.? Or the database sample the A.I. learned from, or in the other words thousands of known and unknown shady brokers?
So who is going to catch our scheme involved A.I., if it process more information than a human, thus, being smarter than a human?
The answer is A.I. Who is better to do it, than one of its own kind?! It has already been used on the market to alarm for potentially suspicion activities by the brokers with a significant better success than the classic human force, dealing with such schemes. It all sounds good from a practical point of view, but for any legal person the question of following procedure comes into mind. Procedural law is designed to protect certain interests and rights of the people being investigated. So how do we design an A.I. that can make procedural decision on the same level as a human, taking into account subjective factors? Furthermore, even if we establish special procedure for an A.I. cop catching human suspects, what happens with procedural law when an A.I. is monitoring the activities of another A.I? Do we need a special procedure for respecting A.I. rights and privileges? If we grant such rights, do we put A.I. on equal footing with humans?
The answers to all these questions might also be the answer, whether HAL 9000 may ever come into existence and what rights, privileges HAL will have. After all the unregulated legal status of HAL causes his death in 2001: Space Odyssey. We do not want to kill the rise of the machines, do we?
Written by Thomas
Adopting AI in developed economies could double growth rates in just under two decades. In developing economies growth rates could increase even more, research suggests. This is because developing countries are now taking a path different to those taken by developed countries. We are already in a time where technological solutions are used to tackle challenges in developing economies. For example, the internet has become more accessible, thereby making it possible to bring teachers to underserved schools.
AI will likely be able to boost development even more by implementing technologies such as photographic identification of infected crops with up to 99.35% accuracy in the farming industry and complex data analyses that would prevent spill over diseases such as Ebola from spreading. In the legal sphere, Artificially Intelligent machines like the Lex Machina, capable of predicting outcomes of motions and orders issued by specific judges, could provide cheap advice for individuals and start-ups that cannot afford legal counselling themselves. Better access to the legal system would therefore improve the position of such groups and boost growth and innovation as a result.
Of course, necessary infrastructure is imperative for AI to be implemented. Increasing global connectivity is a hot topic in the emerging field of data financing; tech companies are now investing into high-tech power supply and telecommunications systems that would allow them to explore new markets with new consumers in the long term.
Meanwhile, AI is set to become useful in economies where such infrastructure is already in place. Currently, legal counselling is often only affordable to those in middle and upper classes, whilst those from the lower class are usually the ones that need it the most. AI will naturally make legal services cheaper and more accessible in at least two ways. Firstly, AI virtual lawyers could be made accessible online, perhaps government-subsidised. This would allow people to get simple legal questions answered without ever visiting a lawyer’s office. Online legal databases currently exist, but are based solely on keyword searches; this is different from AI. Secondly, AI programmes such as Ross could be used by law firms to decrease the time lawyers spend on sifting through cases and legal documents, and increase their productivity as a result. There is less time lawyers can bill their clients for, hence less money spent by the clients.
So AI is here. And it will change our world, a step at a time.
written by Andreyan
You are finally home. The Christmas feast has begun. Fancy dish after fancy dish, drink after dink, jolly time with family, until your grandmother asks you “now that you study, what is your plan for the future”. As sweet as your nana is, the question maybe such a mood crasher that has brought more people to tears than Leo’s character’s self-sacrifice in “Titanic”. In panic your sight starts jumping from dish to dish looking for an inspiration for a satisfying answer, knowing that the honest “I don’t know” is not of satisfactory nature to your grandma. You also know that by simply answering “lawyer or engineer, or programmer” will bring the question “with so many people studying what makes you different”. Between the empty dishes you see your smartphone casually laying around. This manna from heaven is the answer you are looking for. Boldly you state “I am going to do something with law and technology”, while in your head the image of the popular meme of a dog in a chemistry lab with the caption “I have no idea what I am doing” appears and you are about the burst either from overstuffing yourself or because your grandmother’s question completely destroyed your Christmas spirit. So you continue sadly stuffing yourself with tasty Christmas meals.
No?! Never happened to you?!
Well, let us save you the pain of the moment and invite you to the Entrepreneurial Workshop on Law and Technology. I know it is going to be Friday afternoon and it is much more important to get ready for the weekend, but just give us a chance. Why? Because A.I. is the future and it would be much more fun to be part of the people creating the future, than to be a person for whom the future is created. It will give you an insight to a new and interesting field, in which two diametrically opposing studies meet. Who knows, you might meet your future business partners there. You may not like and decide this is definitely not the thing for you, but at least you have tried it. And last, but not least, you can give your nana a satisfactory answer at the Christmas table without ruining your Christmas spirit and bringing yourself to an existential crisis.
Written by Arturo
According to Moore’s Law, the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years. More generally, it describes the rate at which technological and social change take place in today’s technology-centred society.
However, this exponential growth of technology is not accompanied by a quick response from lawmakers. Take, for example, self-driving cars. The technology is ready, and they will hit the streets in just a couple of years – with big companies already planning on making the move to driverless cars. Earlier this year, Uber started using self-driving cars in Pittsburgh, USA, albeit with a driver behind the steering wheel for safety purposes.
On the other side of the coin, lawmakers seem to lag behind. It is not just a matter of the risks associated with unregulated technologies becoming publicly available. It is also a problem because this lag delays progress, by not providing any incentives for big players to innovate in those areas with high uncertainty about the outcome of a legal dispute.
Law firms and lawyers have repeatedly been criticised for failing to move with the times and take a more innovative approach to an archaic system [source]. But technological progress cannot be stopped, therefore, it is in society’s best interest that legal practitioners catch up. The only way this can be accomplished is by intertwining both academic fields, so that key actors on both sides of the problem can understand what is slowing them down – or whether they are going too far. Sometimes, slow and steady wins the race.