Generative AI has promised to reshape the practice of law ever since ChatGPT emerged. However, it's been unclear just how large law firms are using AI. Has it changed how practitioners do their jobs on a daily basis? Are we witnessing the emergence of a revolution in how lawyers do their work?

Uncommon Law's Matthew Schwartz sits in as guest host on this episode of On the Merits. He talks with John Quinn, founder and chair of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, as they discuss his firm's stance on artificial intelligence and the future of the billable hour.

In the season finale of UnCommon Law, we explore the power of AI to transform legal practice. Featuring insights from top law professors, a federal judge, and industry leaders like John Quinn, founder of Quinn Emanuel, we ask: Can AI’s promise of efficiency overcome its risks—and redefine the future of law?

Guests:

UnCommon Law is hosted and produced by Matthew S. Schwartz.

Deepfakes. Disinformation. Algorithmic bias. Job displacement. These are just some of the harms legislators and regulators worry about when they think about how to tackle the risks posed by artificial intelligence.

The first episodes of this season of UnCommon Law deal with generative AI in the copyright law context, since the technology uses massive amounts of copyright protected work. But while copyright law might be the beginning, there's so much more to the story of generative AI and the law.

In this episode, we examine what the government might do to ensure that 21st century life doesn't turn into a dystopian future.

Guests:

The US copyright system encourages human creativity. So does it make sense to grant a copyright to work created by AI with the click of a button? And, if AI generated artwork is given copyright protection, how would that impact the livelihoods of creative professionals?

In our last episode, we looked at Jason Allen’s AI-generated artwork, "Théatre D’opéra Spatial," and the arguments why it should have some copyright protection. This time, we examine the other side – the most powerful arguments for why AI-generated work should never be eligible for copyright.

Guests:

The art world was rattled when Jason M. Allen won first place in the Colorado State Fair for "Théatre D’opéra Spatial" — digital artwork created with artificial intelligence.

Allen had revised his text prompts hundreds of times before landing on the final work; Allen considers Space Opera Theater his creation. But some artists hated his victory. "They were saying I was falsely attributing authorship to something I did not create," Allen said. 

After winning, he submitted the image to the US Copyright Office for a state-issued seal of approval, an official document certifying that the artwork was indeed his creation. Would the Copyright Office agree?

We delved into the controversy surrounding the use of copyrighted material in training AI systems in our first two episodes of this season. Now we shift our focus to the output. Who owns artwork created using artificial intelligence? Should our legal system redefine what constitutes authorship? Or, as AI promises to redefine how we create, will the government cling to historical notions of authorship?

Guests:

Generative AI tools are already promising to change the world. Systems like OpenAI's ChatGPT can answer complex questions, write poems and code, and even mimic famous authors with uncanny accuracy. But in using copyrighted materials to train these powerful AI products, are AI companies infringing the rights of untold creators?

This season on UnCommon Law, we'll explore the intersection between artificial intelligence and the law. On episode one, we learned about the lawsuits filed against AI companies that trained their large language models on copyrighted work without permission. Now we'll learn about the legal defense that could give the AI companies a pass to continue scraping up whatever content they want, copyright-protected or not.

Guests:

Generative AI tools are already promising to change the world. Systems like OpenAI's ChatGPT can answer complex questions, write poems and code, and even mimic famous authors with uncanny accuracy. But in using copyrighted materials to train these powerful AI products, are AI companies infringing the rights of untold creators?

This season on UnCommon Law, we'll explore the intersection between artificial intelligence and the law. Episode one examines how large language models actually ingest and learn from billions of online data points, including copyrighted works. And we explore the lawsuits filed by creators who claim their copyrights were exploited without permission to feed the data-hungry algorithms powering tools like ChatGPT.

Guests:

When Scott Griffin visited the Haunted Trail, he expected to be scared. But he did not expect what happened after he thought the scare was over.

This special Halloween episode of UnCommon Law tells the true story of a man terrorized by a haunted house attraction. Griffin bought a ticket to a haunted house — but ended up getting more than he bargained for: two broken wrists. He sued for negligence and assault. Can someone who paid to be frightened sue when things go too far? 

Guests:

In the conclusion of UnCommon Law's season-long exploration of noncompete agreements, we look at the Federal Trade Commission's authority to ban the clauses nationwide.

We’ve reviewed how the ban would work and explored the policy arguments for and against it. Now we delve into a more fundamental question: Does the FTC even have the power to make a substantive rule like this one?

It's been 50 years since the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the FTC has substantive rulemaking power. We’ll learn about that case — National Petroleum Refiners Association v. FTC — we’ll find out why it’s so important to the FTC, and we’ll hear why many believe it would not turn out the same way today.

But that's not all! Even if courts follow National Petroleum, could the FTC get past the major questions doctrine?

The season finale of UnCommon Law features:

The Supreme Court has effectively ended the use of race as a factor in college admissions.

In a 6-3 ruling, along ideological lines, the divided Supreme Court struck down the admissions programs of Harvard and the University of North Carolina, which both used race as a factor in their admissions process.

Today, on this special edition of UnCommon Law, we’ll learn how the court came to its decision. And: Did the majority leave the door open for colleges to still consider race in some circumstances? We’ll learn why some supporters of affirmative action still have a glimmer of hope.

Featuring: