I suspect there is a lot here that applies elsewhere.

https://www.bespacific.com/artificial-intelligence-and-the-practice-of-law-part-1/

Artificial Intelligence and the Practice of Law Part 1

Murray, Michael D., Artificial Intelligence and the Practice of Law Part 1: Lawyers Must be Professional and Responsible Supervisors of AI (June 14, 2023). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4478588 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4478588 – This article discusses the benefits and challenges of using artificial intelligence (AI) systems to assist lawyers in legal practice. It argues that at present AI systems are not a threat to take over lawyers’ jobs, [Darn. Bob] but rather a powerful tool that can enhance the efficiency and quality of lawyers’ work. However, it also warns that AI systems are not infallible and require professional and responsible supervision by lawyers. The article provides some best practices and recommendations for lawyers to ensure the accuracy and reliability of AI-generated legal work:

• AI systems are tools that learn to do legal tasks and do them well at amazing speeds, but they are not (yet) self-aware or capable of reasoning like humans. Lawyers must exercise due diligence and ethical standards when using AI systems to support their legal practice. They should supervise everything the AI does and verify the sources, information, and forms that the AI provides. Lawyers must make judgments as to proving the AI with useful information but still respecting client confidentiality.

• AI systems can generate coherent and persuasive legal texts, but they can also make errors such as fabricating sources, misinterpreting facts, or applying the wrong laws and legal sources.

• AI systems learn from large datasets of legal and non-legal material on the internet, but they do not understand the meaning or context of what they read or write. The AI systems aim to please, but they lack judgment, wisdom, honesty, and legal experience.

• Lawyers should use AI systems to assist them with tasks where they already know what the research, sources, and form of the response should look like. This will help the lawyers to evaluate the results and spot any errors or inconsistencies.

• AI systems are very good (and very fast) at performing tasks such as document review, translation, summarization, analysis, explanation, or making connections using facts, datasets, and publicly available legal sources. Lawyers should not ask AI systems to make choices or exercise discretionary judgment. Lawyers should ask the AI to perform tasks that the AI is good at and leave the talents and skills that are uniquely human to human lawyers.

The conclusion is that lawyers should embrace AI systems as a powerful tool that can enhance their efficiency and quality of work, but they should also remember the importance of human oversight and judgment in the use of AI for law.”

There will be a scramble to protect any useful collection of data. How will you identify the AI that copies your data?

https://searchengineland.com/new-york-times-content-train-ai-systems-430556

New York Times: Don’t use our content to train AI systems

Although Google wants all online content available for AI training, the New York Times clearly wants to opt out.

The Times has changed its terms of service, aiming to prevent AI companies from using the media organization’s content to train their systems.