Nixon Peabody LLP

  • People
  • Capabilities
  • Insights
  • About

Trending Topics

    • People
    • Capabilities
    • Insights
    • About
    • Locations
    • Events
    • Careers
    • Alumni

    Practices

    View All

    • Affordable Housing
    • Community Development Finance
    • Corporate & Finance
    • Cybersecurity & Privacy
    • Environmental
    • Franchising & Distribution
    • Government Investigations & White Collar Defense
    • Healthcare
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Services
    • Labor & Employment
    • Litigation
    • Private Wealth & Advisory
    • Project Finance
    • Public Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Regulatory & Government Relations

    Industries

    View All

    • Cannabis
    • Consumer
    • Energy
    • Entertainment
    • Financial Services
    • Healthcare
    • Higher Education
    • Infrastructure
    • Manufacturing
    • Non Profit
    • Real Estate
    • Technology

    Value-Added Services

    View All

    • Alternative Fee Arrangements

      Developing innovative pricing structures and alternative fee agreement models that deliver additional value for our clients.

    • Continuing Education

      Advancing professional knowledge and offering credits for attorneys, staff and other professionals.

    • Crisis Advisory

      Helping clients respond correctly when a crisis occurs.

    • DEI Strategic Services

      Providing our clients with legal, strategic, and practical advice to make transformational changes in their organizations.

    • eDiscovery

      Leveraging law and technology to deliver sound solutions.

    • Global Services

      Delivering seamless service through partnerships across the globe.

    • Innovation

      Leveraging leading-edge technology to guide change and create seamless, collaborative experiences for clients and attorneys.

    • IPED

      Industry-leading conferences focused on affordable housing, tax credits, and more.

    • Legal Project Management

      Providing actionable information to support strategic decision-making.

    • Legally Green

      Teaming with clients to advance sustainable projects, mitigate the effects of climate change, and protect our planet.

    • Nixon Peabody Trust Company

      Offering a range of investment management and fiduciary services.

    • NP Capital Connector

      Bringing together companies and investors for tomorrow’s new deals.

    • NP Second Opinion

      Offering fresh insights on cases that are delayed, over budget, or off-target from the desired resolution.

    • NP Trial

      Courtroom-ready lawyers who can resolve disputes early on clients’ terms or prevail at trial before a judge or jury.

    • Social Impact

      Creating positive impact in our communities through increasing equity, access, and opportunity.

    1. Home
    2. Insights
    3. Articles
    4. Different levels of government struggle with artificial intelligence regulationArticles

    Article

    Different levels of government struggle with artificial intelligence regulation

    July 16, 2020

    Share

    By Daniel Schwartz

    Different level of government struggle with the issues of when and how to regulate AI technologies. These issues will become more prevalent as the economy emerges from COVID-19.

    Recognizing the importance of artificial intelligence (AI) to the economy and our daily lives, several branches of the federal government, along with various state executive, legislative, and rule-making bodies have recently addressed whether and how to regulate the development, use, and protection of AI. The developments discussed below underlie one core principle: governments are still grappling with the issues of when and how to regulate/legislate AI technologies. These issues will become more prevalent as the economy emerges from COVID-19 shutdowns.

    As COVID-19 began sweeping across the country, the White House Office of Science and Technology published its 2020 Annual Report on the “American Artificial Intelligence Initiative” (“AI Initiative”) highlighting its most recent developments. While the AI Initiative outlines long-term goals concerning the United States’ prominence in AI, the report primarily outlines internal governmental use and regulation of AI. For instance, the White House has proposed doubling the government’s FY2021 budget dedicated to non-defense AI research and development, and provided guidance to all agencies to further the “safe development, testing, deployment, and adoption of AI technologies,” by “driving the development of appropriate AI technical standards” and by increasing access to federal datasets for AI R&D.

    In addition, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) has embarked on its own Artificial Intelligence Initiative, issuing two separate requests for public comments on various AI issues. The requests have drawn substantial interest and feedback from industry, academia, and legal practitioners. The USPTO has not yet instituted any substantive changes in response to the recent public submissions—a summary and analysis will be provided here shortly—but the USPTO has made certain rulings impacting AI and patent issues. For instance, the USPTO recently decided that only natural persons qualify as inventors, addressing the question of whether a “machine” could invent something and be rewarded a patent for that invention. The USPTO’s decision is similar to decisions by the European Patent Office and the UK Patent Office.

    Similar to the federal government, local governments are looking at unique issues related to AI. New York City created the first-of-its-kind “Algorithm Task Force” to address the use of automated decision-making across various functions of local government (e.g., from determining which schools are attended by which families, to deciding whether individuals should be released on bail prior to trial). The Task Force completed its work in late 2019 with few tangible developments to its credit, but it underscored the difficulties governmental units have with determining when and how to regulate these technologies.

    Litigation involving AI technologies has also begun. In addition to patent litigation (discussed in a separate post), litigation has spanned various areas of law. In Wisconsin, the state Supreme Court addressed the use of AI technologies in sentencing determinations, finding that criminal defendants do not have the right to know how algorithms produced the risk-factors used by the trial court in determining a prison sentence. In Michigan, litigation is ongoing over the state’s use of an automated system that wrongly identified over 20,000 individuals as having committed unemployment benefits fraud. Using the results of the automated system—eventually determined to have been designed with flawed assumptions about who would commit fraud and how it would be committed—the state began enforcement proceedings against thousands of Michigan residents. While litigation continues in these cases, Michigan is also considering legislation to address the use of such automated systems.

    We will continue to monitor these developments and others as they impact how AI is developed and used throughout the United States.


    Artificial Intelligence

    Practices

    Intellectual Property

    Subscribe to stay informed of the latest legal news, alerts, and business trends.Subscribe

    • People
    • Capabilities
    • Insights
    • About
    • Locations
    • Events
    • Careers
    • Alumni
    • © 2023 Nixon Peabody. All rights reserved
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Statement of Client Rights
    • Supplier Diversity Program
    • Nixon Peabody International LLC
    • PAL