• First this morning, a bit of a guilty pleasure, a story from “Cracked,” a favorite from my youth, right up there with “Mad Magazine.” HT to Darryl Cross for these Five Terrifying AI Advances.
  • Here’s another from “Cracked,” this time a very cogent argument (with which I agree) that AI is likely to create as many jobs as it kills (e.g., for paralegals), and that the new jobs will be more satisfying than the old ones. BUT, also that AI is going to exacerbate our wealth inequality.
  • Here’s a concrete example of what governments committed to AI can accomplish–land investment and jobs in their cities. This time it’s a DeepMind facility in Edmonton. And here’s a bit more about government support of AI, this time Taiwan.
  • Here comes a two-part series on AI and the law by Jackson Lewis. Among the assertions in part one:

The rise of artificial intelligence has led some to predict that lawyers may be the next profession to be replaced by computers. However, the more likely outcome is that, in the near term, artificial intelligence will only have a significant impact on those routine tasks performed by attorneys that can be standardized or that fit within a defined structure of rules (e.g., document review, will writing, real estate closings, etc.).

Conversely, the rise of artificial intelligence will have less of an impact on those attorneys who operate in an unstructured environment where there is a high degree of human interaction and where the ability to recognize non-verbal cues and to think creatively is paramount. This includes attorneys who typically appear in court, regularly provide advice to clients, and those that work in highly specialized areas subject to rapid changes in the laws.

  • More on the use of AI by your HR department. Here are three real benefits of using AI in recruiting, and thoughts on AI eventually displacing HR professionals.
  • Access to justice. How cool is this?! A 24-hour “hackathon” was just held in the UK to see how technology could enhance access to justice. I find the results very encouraging.

This was the first ever hackathon for online courts which over time will support users with significantly improved access to the legal system. It was fascinating to see the high levels of creativity and legal innovation underway and the interactions with our most senior judges. It was also interesting to see that every presentation utilised machine learning and artificial intelligence in some way as part of their solutions.

  • Finally, and most important, if you are at all interested in the coming impact of AI on the practice of law. READ THIS essay by Mireille Hildebrandt, “Law As Computation in the Era of Artificial Legal Intelligence Speaking Law to the Power of Statistics.” And this outstanding response. Among it’s conclusions:

A conflict in values is nearby. The church of Dataism looks to exert control and influence over every aspect of our lives as surely as the Medieval Church did over the lives of its congregations. The Church of Dataism is if anything though much more powerful and influential than the Medieval Church ever was. In Medieval England you could choose to ignore the teachings of the Church in private but Dataism will affect every aspect of our lives from education to transport to law to health care. And the impact of its teachings will be in the very environment itself: to use Lessig’s famous term its code will be law.  On the other side sits what I may call the legal luddites. They believe in the rule of law, the value of principles over rules, language, culture, history and logic over statistics. Can both be accommodated in the legal future? Perhaps but the fundamental ideological differences between the two churches give me pause for concern.”