Artificial Intelligence: Useful—But Risky, Deloitte Survey Says
Four out of 10 executives are concerned about the legal and regulatory risks of artificial intelligence, according to a recent Deloitte survey. Lawyers shared with Legaltech News the concerns they've heard and gave suggestions to address those risks.
November 05, 2018 at 11:00 AM
4 minute read
Lawyers and their clients are increasingly becoming aware of the benefits of artificial intelligence, but the risks of the burgeoning technology have left some clients wary of implementing AI.
In fact, four out of 10 executives had a “high degree of concern about the legal and regulatory risks associated with AI systems,” according to Deloitte's recently released survey “State of AI in the Enterprise.”
Artificial intelligence regulations and its risks cut across many practice areas, according to the lawyers contacted by Legaltech News. Lawyers suggested that clients should be fully aware of the data used by their AI and to keep an eye on any results it provides.
Reed Smith's Wendell Bartnick suggested companies may be wary of implementing AI if the program's results have broad applicability, are difficult to reverse or have results that aren't predictable. For example,e Bartnick noted the possibly difficult position a financial institution may face if it uses AI when issuing a loan. In the event the software makes a discriminatory or incorrect decision, detecting, correcting or stopping the result may be difficult, he said.
Roseyna Jahangir, a London-based attorney in Womble Bond Dickinson, said if the results of an AI program's algorithm causes a “detrimental outcome” to customers that a business may not be aware of, U.K. regulators won't allow an enterprise to use, “'Oh well, I didn't know the computer would do that'” as a defense.
Jahangir suggested AI developers know the intricacies of their algorithms and what triggers a result's outcome.
Natalie Pierce, co-chair of Littler Mendelson's robotics, AI and automation industry group, said the slow adoption of AI may be based on the lack of regulation regarding AI, uncertainty about how their AI implementation could be challenged and not seeking to change the status quo. Pierce said AI is an opportunity that could garner great outcomes but all caution can't be thrown out.
“If you do [use AI], clients will see a huge return because these programs can do a better job than we humans can,” said Pierce. “[But] you can't take yourself out of the equation.”
Pierce said it's important, when using AI, to know its integrated data and the science behind it. She also said cross validation of important data should be performed to determine which should be used and that users should constantly retest the algorithm.
Some organizations are tepidly embracing AI because of the amount of data needed for training artificial intelligence and machine learning, Reed Smith's Bartnick also said.
“We have smaller clients that are struggling with companies or fear they won't be able to compete because they don't have the trove of data [like] the big compan[ies],” Bartnick said.
|Regulations
There isn't a single law regulating artificial intelligence, lawyers said, and AI touches a myriad of legal issues. However, a few attorneys cited provisions in the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation as targeting AI.
Bartnick explained the GDPR's AI regulations are geared toward programs not being able “to run out of control and make substantial effects without human intervention and monitoring.”
Covington & Burling partner Lee Tiedrich suggested taking a global perspective when assessing which jurisdiction an AI program is confide to. Often, Tiedrich said, artificial intelligence is not limited to one jurisdiction.
Tiedrich said clients seek advice on how to develop their product and Covington provides product counseling to minimize the client's legal liability. Clients tend to also ask for advice regarding the legislative outlook for AI and how to manage their risk, she said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250