In February 2018 the EU’s Article 29 Data Protection Working Party published its Guidelines on Automated individual decision-making and Profiling for the purposes of Regulation 2016/679. The guidelines explore Art. 21–22 of the General Data Protection Regulation, and although the title may not indicate it, provide another element in the legal framework for development and use of artificial intelligence. They also show that this framework may be truly restrictive.
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) was set up in 2009 by members of the G20 to coordinate the work of financial authorities at the international level and promote and develop financial stability policies. It is made up of representatives of state authorities responsible for finances from 24 countries, financial institutions, and supervisory and regulatory authorities.
While most countries have not given any thought yet to regulations governing artificial intelligence, and the European Union is only at the stage of adopting resolutions recognising the need to examine this topic, Estonia is not only drafting its own legal act but wants the law to be exceptionally innovative.
Will AI replace lawyers and judges or simply change the way they work and think about the law?
Back in the late 1980s, lawyers used to type their legal briefs on old-fashioned typewriters. Briefs were shorter then but drove right to the central issue of the case. Now some lawyers copy/paste long passages from other briefs and compose new ones running to hundreds of pages. Judges’ opinions are longer too, burying the true reasons behind their decisions in page after page of verbiage. Word-processing software makes it easy to spin out long briefs or opinions where the real issues often become blurred. More importantly, it seems the way we write has also affected the way we think.