News You Can Use – August 2023

A collection of interesting finds across the web (URL), and updates on where to meet with the Lupl team in real life (IRL).

• It’s not just Netflix’s $900K AI jobs, it’s the hypocrisy. Our take - other industries are feeling the heat from AI, just like we are. There is new controversy surrounding Netflix's high-paying AI jobs, particularly an AI product manager role with a pay ceiling of $900,000, and the perceived hypocrisy in the entertainment industry. Netflix, like any other tech company, is investing heavily in AI, but it's not necessarily to replace actors and writers. It appears that most of the AI-related roles are aimed at improving efficiency and exploring new innovations. The article argues that the outrage should not be based on industry-standard practices necessary for a tech company's success, but rather on the evident disparity between what Netflix is willing to pay its tech staff and its creative talent. The author suggests that the real issue lies in the company's willingness "to pay some people what they're worth, and others as little as they can get away with," highlighting the need for a complete rewrite of the relationship between creators and distribution platforms.
• Who Will Train Digital (Legal) Talent At Scale? Our take - The digital skills gap conversation in legal is not a new one. The demand for digital talent is outstripping supply across all industries now, and this gap is an enterprise-wide challenge, affecting all areas of business. The article suggests that the legal industry should follow the blueprint of other businesses, which are taking bold steps to expand, train, and up-skill digital talent to meet their needs. These steps include a shift from hiring based on skills not degrees, increased investment in upskilling and career advancement, and promoting a learning-for-life mindset. The development of digital legal talent is crucial not only for the legal function but also for business, clients, and society at large. If legal wants to keep the pace of other industries, it will take new approaches to align the legal function with business and society, emphasizing the need for result-driven, tech-enabled, data-backed, and collaborative strategies for education, training, and career development.
• AI Legal News Summer Roundup. Our take - A comprehensive roundup of recent legal developments in the rapidly evolving landscape of AI. Key highlights include a growing number of lawsuits in the United States directed towards training data for AI systems, AI-generated outputs, and AI systems themselves, with claims ranging from copyright infringement to privacy violations. Notably, multiple class actions have been filed against providers of foundational generative AI LLMs and technologies, including OpenAI, Microsoft, Meta, and Alphabet/Google. The FTC has also expressed concerns about unfair competition in the AI sector and launched an investigation into OpenAI's privacy and data security practices. Other developments include calls for tech companies to label AI-generated content to combat misinformation, new rules for generative AI services in China, and the establishment of an AI parliamentary inquiry in Australia.
• Survey Says Gen AI Puts Law Librarians and KM Professionals At Risk of Obsolescence. Our take - A recent survey conducted by Wolters Kluwer and Above the Law, reveals that a majority of legal professionals believe that generative AI could render librarians and knowledge management professionals obsolete. The survey, which included 275 legal professionals, found that two-thirds of respondents believe that roles such as document review lawyers and librarians could be replaced by generative AI, with 40% also considering paralegals at risk. However, law firm partners are deemed the safest. The practice areas most likely to be impacted include corporate, trust and estates, litigation, intellectual property, and tax. The survey suggests that generative AI will bring transformative efficiencies to research and routine tasks, and its effective use could distinguish successful law firms from unsuccessful ones over the next five years.