Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
As the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) increases, so does the likelihood of its role in both civil and criminal proceedings. While AI is often conceived of as a computer which can match or exceed a human's performance in tasks requiring cognitive abilities, in fact it is just software. Software is generally admissible as evidence if it is relevant, material, and competent. However, AI differs from traditional software, perhaps requiring novel admissibility considerations.
More specifically, both traditional software and AI contain algorithms. Algorithms are procedures employed for solving a problem or performing a computation. Algorithms act as a step-by-step list of instructions specifying specific actions to be performed using either hardware or software-based routines. The fundamental difference with AI and traditional algorithms is that an AI can change its outputs based on new inputs, while a traditional algorithm will always generate the same output for a given input.
AI like traditional software may produce two types of evidence, namely computer records and computer generated evidence. Computer records do not require analysis or assumption by the programing, whereas computer generated evidence does. Computer records are generally print outs complied by a computer in a prescribed fashion from data. Computer generated evidence is computer output based on data and assumptions contained in a program.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.