This article contains a summary of three real-life examples that highlight the current risks of relying solely on AI for legal research.
Our legal experts will keep you up to date on all relevant and current developments.
This article contains a summary of three real-life examples that highlight the current risks of relying solely on AI for legal research.
Readers may recall Holman Webb’s September 2021 article ‘The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Can AI invent software?’, which reported on a landmark judgement by Justice Beach of the Federal Court in the matter of Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879, which determined that under Australian law, artificial intelligence could be listed as the inventor in relation to an application for a patent.
Readers may also recall that the Commissioner of Patents appealed that decision.
That decision has now been overturned by the Full Court of the Federal Court, in a unanimous judgement which brings Australia into line with most other jurisdictions around the world.
The Commissioner of Patents will appeal the Australian Federal Court’s recent decision in Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879, to allow machines to be recognised as inventors on a patent application, on the basis that the decision is ‘incompatible’ with Australian patent law
Last week The New York Times released an article focussed on facial recognition technology. The piece examined Clearview AI, a company which whilst being virtually unknown, is, according to the New York Times, already being used by over 600 law enforcement agencies internationally. The company is reported to have already scraped over 3 billion images from across the internet.