Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="afazeli-nia" data-source="post: 184822" data-attributes="member: 37265">
<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">AI advice. This is an interesting question and I think different IP/Tech teams are approaching it differently across the city. The AI work we see so far is split into advisory/regulatory work focusing on compliance with the EUAIA and working for clients who are buying businesses that use AI. An area some people may not consider however is how much AI forms part of businesses that are not actually AI-focused. For example, a client might not actually be developing an AI tool but may use it extensively in its business (e.g. to help with software development). In terms of considerations, our advice (arguably any legal advice) is principally concerned with risk and this is no different for AI. Obvious risks are ownership of valuable products and compliance with regulations, which I think presents an interesting mix between transactional and regulatory work. </li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Adjustments to advisory practices. I think you have caught the main points here, which are actually not that far away from what we might do when advising software companies for example. The newer aspect here in my opinion is the ethical one as, especially in the UK, we are having to think about how our comparably old existing regulations would deal with a new and fast-changing technology. In these cases, you are having to think less in terms of what is in a statute and more in terms of the policy goals behind it, including how judges and law-makers have dealt with similar topics in the past. If you haven't already and are interested, I would suggest reading about the &quot;DABUS&quot; line of cases on AI patents. </li>
</ul></blockquote>

[QUOTE="afazeli-nia, post: 184822, member: 37265"] [LIST] [*][B]AI advice.[/B] This is an interesting question and I think different IP/Tech teams are approaching it differently across the city. The AI work we see so far is split into advisory/regulatory work focusing on compliance with the EUAIA and working for clients who are buying businesses that use AI. An area some people may not consider however is how much AI forms part of businesses that are not actually AI-focused. For example, a client might not actually be developing an AI tool but may use it extensively in its business (e.g. to help with software development). In terms of considerations, our advice (arguably any legal advice) is principally concerned with risk and this is no different for AI. Obvious risks are ownership of valuable products and compliance with regulations, which I think presents an interesting mix between transactional and regulatory work. [*][B]Adjustments to advisory practices.[/B] I think you have caught the main points here, which are actually not that far away from what we might do when advising software companies for example. The newer aspect here in my opinion is the ethical one as, especially in the UK, we are having to think about how our comparably old existing regulations would deal with a new and fast-changing technology. In these cases, you are having to think less in terms of what is in a statute and more in terms of the policy goals behind it, including how judges and law-makers have dealt with similar topics in the past. If you haven't already and are interested, I would suggest reading about the "DABUS" line of cases on AI patents. [/LIST] [/QUOTE]

Verification

Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?

Search

Search

Reply to thread