There should be something for all of us…
An Introduction to Artificial Intelligence for Federal Judges
An Introduction to Artificial Intelligence for Federal Judges by James E. Baker, Laurie N. Hobart, Matthew Mittelsteadt – Judges must understand how AI works, its applications, its implications for the fact-finding process, and its risks. They should be able to answer the following four questions in context:
1.
How is AI being used in court or to inform judicial decisions?
2.
Does the fact finder understand the AI’s strengths, limitations,
and risks, such as bias?
3. Is the AI application authentic,
relevant, reliable, and material to the issue at hand, and is its use
or admission consistent with the Constitution, statutes, and the
Rules of Evidence?
4. Has an AI algorithm, a human, or some
combination of the two made “the judicial decision,” and, in all
cases, has that decision been documented in an appropriate and
transparent manner allowing for judicial review and appeal?
This guide addresses these questions by providing some technical background and highlighting some potential legal issues. We do not provide legal judgments about the use of different AI applications. In discussing how AI is used today and may be used in the future, we do not endorse that use in any particular context or application. Rather, we identify core concepts and issues, so that when judges decide whether to admit AI applications into evidence or to use AI in a judicial determination, they decide wisely and fairly. Making these decisions requires judges and litigators to know enough about AI to ask the right questions, at the right moment, in the right depth. It is up to the trial fact finders to determine the facts in each context and to judges to determine the appropriate application of law. We hope this guide helps.”
(Related)
https://www.bespacific.com/the-power-of-the-prompt-a-special-report-on-ai-for-in-house-counsel/
The Power of the Prompt: A Special Report on AI for In-House Counsel
Bloomberg Law: “Every couple of decades, technology grabs headlines and takes hold of the collective conversation with developments said to represent a giant leap for mankind. The telephone, electricity, television, personal computers, the internet, smartphones and—some say—artificial intelligence. AI has become a daily news fixture in a short amount of time, embedding itself as an action item on corporate meeting agendas in industries across the globe. We’ve been covering AI and its impact on various aspects of the legal industry for a long time. But we’ve really picked up the pace over the last year with the emergence of generative AI, which goes further than any previous technology to create new text, video and images. Suddenly it’s possible to plug almost any request into an AI prompt, and “send a request” to a model like ChatGPT to draft a letter to a client or distill complex legal ideas into plain English. “The Power of the Prompt” is an interactive special report drawing on the breadth of our recent reporting and analysis. In a pair of stories, reporter Isabel Gottlieb gets a read on where corporate legal departments and legal operations teams stand on embracing AI. And analyst Stephanie Pacheco takes that one step further, outlining the data on just how quickly in-house teams are adapting. The package also includes practical tools and perspectives written by almost two dozen thought leaders and legal experts on considerations for AI in tax, copyright, corporate governance, employment, and more. Regardless of where you are in your understanding of the technology and how it may impact you or the company you advise, our guide to artificial intelligence and the practice of law will help you navigate what’s next”
So how do you protect your “trade secret” algorithm?
https://www.theregreview.org/2023/09/04/coglianese-ai-due-process-and-trade-secrets/
AI, Due Process, and Trade Secrets
… Royal Brush Manufacturing v. United States landed in federal court when an importer of pencils challenged CBP’s accusation that the importer had evaded trade rules by claiming its imported pencils were made in the Philippines rather than in China. In its challenge to CBP’s decision, the importer argued that its due process rights were violated because it was not given access to photos and data that CBP had used in reaching its decision. CBP argued, though, that it couldn’t provide the importer with this information because they related to a third party — the manufacturing company in the Philippines that the importer claimed to have made its pencils. According to CBP, the business data collected from the Philippines’ firm, along with the photos of its manufacturing facilities, indicated that the firm lacked the capacity to make all the pencils that the importer had claimed to have bought. But CBP wouldn’t turn over the business data or photos to the importer because they comprised confidential business information, and the agency had a statutory obligation to protect that confidentiality.
The Federal Circuit rejected the government’s argument, reasoning that because the Due Process Clause of the Constitution requires adversely affected parties to see the information that government relies upon, this constitutional requirement trumped any statutory prohibitions on governmental disclosure of trade secrets: “Because the Constitution authorizes, and indeed requires, the release of confidential business information in this case, the Trade Secrets Act does not stand in the way of such release.” The Federal Circuit held that CBP could have shared the confidential business information subject to a protective order that would have prohibited its further disclosure.
If the Federal Circuit’s ruling is to be followed elsewhere, the upshot could be significant for anyone seeking to challenge agencies’ use of artificial intelligence on due process grounds. Litigants challenging the government’s application of machine-learning algorithms might now be able to rely on the Federal Circuit decision to gain access to information about those algorithms, even when they are developed and deployed by a private contractor who claims trade secret protection, as in the Houston case from 2017. Sunshine, in other words, could more easily penetrate the black boxes of an algorithmic state.
No comments:
Post a Comment