Tutoring Your AI May Be Getting Easier, But It's No Less Exhaustive
The time it takes to successfully train an AI has diminished, but attempting to keep it up to date with some of the world-wide regulatory changes in fields like privacy may require ongoing lessons.
July 09, 2019 at 09:30 AM
4 minute read
It may be getting easier to teach an AI new tricks, but don't expect the lessons to stop coming any time soon.
Laura van Wyngaarden, COO and co-founder of the contract review platform Diligen, has seen the time it takes to successfully train an AI system drop significantly over the past few years. But the challenges left on the table may have less to do with the density of a given practice area than the fluid conditions governing ever-evolving regulatory frontiers like privacy.
“We make sure that we're responsive to regulatory change so that when we see regulatory change on the horizon, that's going to mean that our clients and others out there are going to be forced to do an enormous amount contractually,” van Wyngaarden said.
Applying AI towards those ends isn't necessarily a process that can be undertaken on a whim. Like a small child, an AI has to be taught right from wrong— in other words how to recognize or identify specific terms, actions or parameters related to the task at hand. This requires both a data set (think of that as a textbook) and a solid algorithm.
Which isn't to say that there aren't shortcuts on the market. Last week, Diligen expanded its library with the addition of more than 250 pre-trained clause models that can be used to teach an AI to identify corresponding clauses within a contract.
The idea is to make it easier for companies to review huge volumes of contracts for specific clauses without having to go to through the time-consuming effort of training the AI to locate said clauses themselves. Still, even if an organization does elect to bite the bullet and teach their own AI, the requirements of keeping up with an increasingly global marketplace likely means that the education will be ongoing.
“If you train a contract tool on a U.K. contract and you want to use it in the U.S., you have to adapt it to the U.S. continent. Or even with the U.S., different jurisdictions have different sort of signs or so on,” said Khalid Al-Kofahi, vice president of research and development at Thomson Reuters and head of the company's Center for Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Computing.
Regulatory pressures that stretch across a variety of industries make it seem likely that a given contract tool will have to do some overseas work at one point or another. For example, one such development that Diligen moved to address after speaking with customers was a decision made by the U.K.'s Financial Conduct Authority in 2017 to discontinue the London Interbank Overnight Rate (LIBOR).
Clients were feeling the pinch of having to sort through thousands of contracts looking for references to LIBOR that needed to be reviewed. “And you can imagine reviewing hundreds of thousands of contracts is immensely time consuming if you're going to do it manually,” van Wyngaarden said.
Beyond the finance industry, privacy in particular could also present a challenge to AI training simply because the patchwork of evolving laws vary not just in language but in content across the globe.
“If you're using certain training and testing data sets to build up your machine learning, if you're changing the parameters—i.e. if you're changing the law—then what used to be a highly optimized algorithm and performing well in a certain area may not any longer,” said Michael Riesen, a partner at Smith Gambrell & Russell and executive director of its innovation team SGR Labs.
Riesen thinks that it would be easy to reteach an AI tool to identify potential red flags in a contract that need to be addressed in light of changes to the law. However, teaching the same technology to mine for deeper insights, such as trends in how laws are actually being enforced, may require a body of data that is only now starting to take shape.
“As we start seeing these fines being handed out for [GDPR] violations, that would be an interesting data set to start to learn and identify,” Riesen 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
- 1Bucking Industry Trend, Sidley Austin Elects Biggest Class of Partners in Firm History
- 2US Judge Throws Out Sale of Infowars to The Onion. But That's Not the End of the Road for Sandy Hook Families
- 3‘Really Deflating’: Judges React to Biden Threat to Veto New Judgeships Bill
- 43 Incidents Lead to Charges Against the Alexander Brothers; Cousin Remains at Large
- 5Sidley Austin Elects Biggest Combined Class of Partners and Counsel in Firm History
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