Michael Malak’s Post

The Supreme Court's decision Friday limiting executive branch power also further hobbled U.S. government efforts to roll back Big Tech's power, Axios managing editor for tech Scott Rosenberg writes. Why it matters: Tech giants have long fueled efforts to pass new federal laws limiting the companies' influence. But now, and for a long time to come, advocates will need to find other ways to achieve that goal. Friday's decision essentially scuttles the regulatory strategy Congress has long used to establish rules for complex technical realms like healthcare, the environment and telecommunications. For 40 years, under a Supreme Court principle known as "Chevron deference," Congress has assumed it can draft broad principles establishing its goals and plans — and leave the complex implementation details to experts at executive-branch agencies. 🔭 Zoom out: The court has struck at the heart of the Progressive Era ideal that experts in government with specialized knowledge can represent the public interest in conflicts with corporate power. Winners: No one has deeper pockets than Microsoft, Apple, Google, Meta and Amazon. They can keep expanding their legal budgets, defending themselves in court and doing whatever they want in the meantime. Whole generations of hardware and software can be born and die in the years it takes for a complex case to be tried, appealed and resolved. Losers: The activists and organizations that support stricter tech regulation just saw the goalposts move into the far distance.

Most interesting legal research question of the week: Red Flags are not Red Herrings. There are a couple things I love about Vanderbilt's 10-day program (https://lnkd.in/geP9fYsU). First, I wish I thought of this, delivering a course via Substack. What a great way for folks to ‘keep abreast of …the benefits and risks associate with relevant technology.” These should be CLE eligible nationwide. I don’t think I’ll ever love my inbox but this kind of thing warms it up. Second, the program requests we suspend our skepticism. That’s useful. I have separate, unrelated concerns about modeling GenAI after a coworker (i.e., people ≠ machines/text) but ‘don’t give orders’ is a good tip because I think it helps set reasonable expectations. In spirit of the Day 1 assignment my reflection is this: I now have an excuse to love something I thought I shouldn’t. Recently, an AI snippet in Westlaw QuickCheck highlighted a potential mischaracterization that wasn’t there. I appreciated this quite a bit even though I had to spend a few additional minutes reviewing material I wouldn’t have otherwise. Why doesn’t this frustrate me? Because I figure it might catch one the next time and I’m glad the AI is on the case. This really serves a similar function as a citator, I think. Chasing down the reason behind a red flag can take a few additional minutes. I still want my citator. And I’ve talked to loads of folks who won’t cite a case because it has a red flag even if the flag is completely irrelevant to the reason we’re citing the case. Baby with the bathwater. Is there a term of art for this ‘positive’ decrease in efficiency? At any rate, the reflection time was worth it for me. Thanks, Cat Moon 😺 and VAIL

Moore’s law is a bit like the Dunning-Kruger effect or the big bang theory, in that it’s escaped the community of specialists from which it emerged and become a reference point in many walks of life. Here’s a quick primer of the law and its background, in case you’re not aware. In 1965, Intel founder Gordon Moore projected that the number of transistors in microchips would double every year, yielding similarly big leaps in their processing power. In 1975, he revised it to a doubling every two years. An exponential increase like this, whether it happened once a year or once every two years, would mean that chips would become vastly, almost unimaginably more powerful in a short time span and could also be made much smaller. I’m not sure what Moore’s peers made of his claim at the time, but it turned out to be correct—and for far longer than just the decade or so that he predicted. When Moore made his prediction, chips had thousands of transistors. Now they have billions. And that’s why what we can do with computers these days would almost certainly melt the brain of any time traveler from the 1970s who made the mistake of visiting us. Everyone in deeptech dreams of coming across a technology that unlocks a Moore’s law pace of increase in its own domain. Battery capacity, solar-panel efficiency, image resolution, network speeds: if you develop a technology that offers exponential increases in one of these, you’re set to make a fortune. I do wonder whether the improbable truth of Moore’s law within its own field has had distorting consequences on how we talk about performance improvements. I get this sense that some founders and STEM researchers think that only exponential increases will satisfy investors, and so they either go down the most long-shot research paths or start making exaggerated claims. Perhaps tech investors like me have unwittingly encouraged this by talking about Moore’s law as though achieving an equivalent of it is feasible in every industry. I’ll have more to say about this in my next post, but in the meantime, if you’re involved in tech investing or research, I’d be interested to hear whether objectives for and predictions about performance improvements in your field are generally too conservative and incremental, too optimistic, or more or less on the mark. Leave your thoughts below!

New technology always catches our attention, this article was an informative read! https://lnkd.in/geYUCGuH

Are legal teams ready for the tech-driven future of regulatory investigations? Earlier this week, the FTC’s Office of Technology released a report detailing how it integrates technology experts into investigatory teams. Its two case studies illustrate the flavor of technical requests companies must be prepared to handle in the future, underscoring the critical role of tech-savvy counsel. As we navigate this evolving landscape, it’s clear that legal departments and outside counsel with a firm grasp of technological advancements will be instrumental to succeeding in the current regulatory environment.

We want your voice to be heard, so we’ve extended the deadline for one FINAL EXTENSION to May 13.   PRACTICE TECH INNOVATORS, do you have the budget, talent and access to drive the change that you are charged with? What are your most and least favorite products and vendors? Take the survey: https://lnkd.in/gGQvy56V LAW FIRM ASSOCIATES, how do you really feel about the training and tools available to you? What are the worst products your firm makes you use? Are you worried about in-house opportunities due to AI developments and macroeconomic conditions? Take the survey: https://lnkd.in/etkxuVDK   LEGALTECH PROVIDERS, who are the law firms that excel at buying, trying, and implementing technology? Take the survey: https://lnkd.in/g5PzM73b All responses are strictly confidential, and data will only be used in aggregate form. To learn more about the Modernize Legal initiative, visit https://lnkd.in/eJ47EzsT.   #makelawbetter #legaltech #legalinnovation

Episode drop! Thinking about going out on your own or modernizing your firm? One of the toughest decisions to make is about the software to choose. And now this software is more than just docketing, it involves AI too. Take 12 minutes of your day to listen to Dan Fridmar and Faren Bogach talk about law and tech! Link to the episode is in the comments. https://bit.ly/3Wb9Z9v #constructlegal #lawntrepreneurs

Achtung! ;) I'm headed back to Munich! If you happen to be in the city this week, I will be speaking on a panel about the future of #AI for the U.S. & Europe Legal Tax Practice Trends at the American Bar Association, International Bar Association, and USA Branch of International Fiscal Association (IFA USA) event. Looking forward to our #AI session with chairs Niklas J.R.M. Schmidt and Kimberly Majure and including my brilliant fellow speakers Alexandra Courela, Brett Kass, Thomas Linder, and Travis Thompson. Hope to see you there! #tax #law #AI #technology #LegalTech #FutureStuff

This is worth a read: "...the relationship between Moore's Law and Wright's Law is somewhat subtle. From a theoretical perspective, the two-way causality between experience (as measured by cumulative production) and technological progress (as measured by cost) suggests that we should view the process of technological innovation and disruption as a complex system. Although this notion is difficult to formalize mathematically, a complex system can nevertheless be thought of as a network that evolves over time. The nodes of this network include all the variables of interest, including cumulative production and cost, while the directed edges encode (somehow) all the causal relationships between these variables."

The 2024 LTN Law Firm Tech Survey spoke with 30 technologists at top U.S. law firms. Some results indicate that 43.3% of U.S. law firms have a specific department or role dedicated to working with Artificial Intelligence; and 46.6% are leveraging generative AI models for internal for external work.