I
walked
into
the
AI
Summit
with
hard
questions
about
industry
maturity,
infrastructure
challenges,
and
implementation
realities.
My
previous
coverage
explored
some
of
these
issues
in
my
initial
fireside
chat
analysis
and
pre-Summit
post.
Here’s
what
I
found
—
and
what
I
didn’t
find
—
across
10
key
takeaways.
My
10
Takeaways
1.
Did
the
show
focus
on
the
above
challenges?
Largely,
no.
There
were
a
few
sessions
that
mentioned
the
infrastructure,
for
example,
but
none
talked
about
the
energy
risks.
The
only
one
that
came
close
was
one
on
sovereign
AI
but
it
was
mainly
a
marketing
pitch
for
a
supercomputer.
2.
As
far
as
the
verification
and
economic
challenges,
there
was
not
much
discussion.
Rather
the
Summit
felt
like
another
AI
love
fest:
everyone
with
different
spoons
stirring
in
the
same
old
bowl.
I
get
it,
it’s
a
show
for
the
vendors
and
by
the
vendors.
But
shouldn’t
there
have
been
at
least
a
little
more
discussion
of
reality
and
the
challenges?
3.
One
bright
spot
was
the
cybersecurity
stage.
Most
of
the
presenters
for
this
stage
recognized
the
cybersecurity
risks
that
sophisticated
AI
could
pose.
Like
AI
platforms
that
could
adapt
to
the
defenses
and
then
attack
again
and
again.
One
presenter
mentioned
the
risks
to
the
electric
grid
and
infrastructure
which
could
impact
AI
and
slow
its
use.
4.
I
was
particularly
interested
in
hearing
from
the
New
York
City
presenters,
who
returned
to
discuss
how
the
City
uses
AI
to
serve
underserved
communities.
While
progress
has
been
made,
much
of
their
presentation
focused
on
political
threats
to
these
programs
under
the
incoming
mayoral
administration
and
in
general.
The
fears
were
palpable
and
understandable.
5.
There
were
several
references
to
ambient
AI
—
AI
that
works
in
the
background
without
people
realizing
it.
That’s
where
we
are
headed.
But
the
focus
should
have
been
perhaps
more
on
what
the
tools
that
AI
supports
could
actually
do
and
what
problems
those
tools
could
now
solve
with
AI’s
help.
Indeed,
there
appeared
to
be
lots
of
interest
in
the
use
of
AI
in
health
care
and
in
finance.
Those
sessions
were
the
most
well
attended
which
perhaps
reflects
an
interest,
as
mentioned
above,
in
how
AI
could
be
applied
practically
to
make
other
things
work
better.
6.
There
was
a
lot
of
interest
in
what
AI
will
do
to
creative
fields
and
how
AI
could
be
legitimately
used
by
humans
in
a
creative
fashion.
The
prevailing
view
seemed
to
be
that
ideas
come
from
humans,
and
the
AI
enables
implementation
and
the
fleshing
out
of
those
ideas
in
ways
not
previously
possible.
That’s
good
for
now.
But
the
issue
really
is
as
AI
advances,
what
will
it
do
to
human
creativity
fields
and
the
arts.
The
sessions
looked
less
at
this
and
what
AI
can
do
now.
7.
A
common
and
perhaps
by
now
trite
theme:
AI
with
humans
beats
AI
or
humans
alone.
It’s
the
human
in
the
loop
argument.
But
rarely
does
anyone
stop
and
ask
what
this
means.
What
human?
And
where
in
the
loop
does
the
human
fit
today
and
tomorrow?
I’m
not
faulting
the
AI
Summit
for
not
asking
these
questions,
no
other
conference
is
either.
8.
I
have
to
talk
about
the
facility,
the
Javits
Center,
in
particular,
since
it
will
be
the
site
of
the
legal
tech
conference,
Legalweek.
In
2026,
that
conference
is
moving
from
midtown
Manhattan
where
it’s
been
for
years.
The
good?
Javits
is
roomy,
the
exhibit
space
flows
well.
It’s
not
chopped
on
three
floors
like
the
Hilton
space
is.
The
food
at
Javits
is
not
as
bad
as
some
conference
venues.
There’s
even
a
Starbucks
onsite.
The
bad?
Many
of
the
stages
took
place
on
the
exhibit
floor.
For
the
most
part
the
presentations
there
were
hard
to
hear
over
the
din
of
the
rest
of
the
floor.
Whether
Legalweek
will
resort
to
the
having
the
same
arrangement
remains
to
be
seen.
But
it’s
distracting
to
say
the
least.
The
ugly?
It’s
a
walk
from
most
hotels.
There
are
few
restaurants
in
the
vicinity.
There
is
no
shopping
nearby.
All
the
things
that
made
the
midtown
site
attractive
to
many
are
far
away
from
the
Javits
Center.
That
doesn’t
particularly
bother
me
since
I
go
to
several
shows
where
walking
some
distance
to
get
from
place
to
place
is
necessary.
But
based
on
the
feedback
to
this
year’s
ABA
TechShow
of
which
I
was
co-chair,
which
made
a
similar
move
to
a
similar
venue,
McCormick
Place
in
Chicago,
I
predict
Legalweek
will
hear
a
slew
of
complaints
over
this.
And
since
it
will
in
early
March,
it
may
be
a
cold
walk
as
well.
9.
As
I
have
written,
there
were
some
useful
perspectives
from
business
leaders
on
the
proper
AI
mindset.
That
mindset
is
much
different
than
I
see
in
legal.
Part
of
that
is
by
necessity:
legal
thrives
on
accuracy
and
confidence.
But
as
one
of
my
clients
used
to
say,
we
always
need
to
be
careful
we
don’t
spend
too
much
time
in
the
closet
talking
to
ourselves.
That’s
the
beauty
of
attending
a
conference
like
the
AI
Summit.
But
like
most
nonlegal
conferences
I
attend,
there
were
few,
if
any,
legal
professionals
or
lawyers
in
attendance
at
the
Summit.
There
was
little
discussion
of
legal
issues.
It’s
not
good
for
legal
to
ignore
what’s
going
on
in
the
rest
of
the
world.
If
nothing
else,
many
of
the
exhibitors
and
attendees
are
likely
clients
of
lawyers
and
law
firms
(or
could
be).
It
might
be
good
to
hear
what
they
are
thinking.
10.
Unlike
some
shows
I
have
been
to,
I
didn’t
get
the
sense
of
a
bro
culture.
People
were
energetic
and
enthusiastic
about
AI
in
general,
and
in
particular,
use
cases.
They
are
looking
to
push
the
envelope.
That’s
a
good
thing.
That’s
how
we
advance.
It’s
like
another
show
I
attend
every
year,
CES:
75%
of
what’s
talked
about
may
never
happen.
But
some
things
will.
Or
what’s
talked
about
will
inspire
new
things
to
happen
and
be
developed.
That’s
the
beauty
of
attending:
fresh
perspectives,
new
ways
of
thinking.
When
Can
We
Talk?
My
takeaways
lead
to
some
broader
questions
that
need
addressing.
Let
me
hasten
to
say
if
I
sound
like
I’m
an
AI
curmudgeon
of
late,
I’m
not.
I
believe
in
AI
and
its
vast
opportunities.
But
with
those
opportunities
come
challenges.
Like
how
we
can
ensure
we
have
the
infrastructure
to
support
all
the
things
we
want
AI
to
do.
Like
how
AI
will
disrupt
the
workforce,
eliminate
jobs,
and
redefine
what
work
means.
We
get
too
many
pithy
concepts
tossed
around
like
truisms:
AI
won’t
replace
humans
it
will
just
replace
humans
that
don’t
use
it.
Or
there
will
be
other
jobs
to
replace
those
lost
to
the
technology.
Maybe
these
things
are
true.
But
just
mouthing
them
doesn’t
make
that
so.
Perhaps
shows
like
the
AI
Summit
are
not
the
place
to
talk
openly
about
these
things.
But
we
need
to
have
that
discussion
someplace:
a
first-time
attendee
asked
me
at
the
Summit
if
there
were
any
conferences
devoted
to
an
examination
of
the
hard
issues.
I
thought
for
a
moment
and
finally
said,
“None
that
I
can
think
of.”
Right
now,
our
relationship
with
AI
is
like
one
where
hard
issues
are
always
put
off.
That
never
ends
well.
It’s
great
to
sing
your
team’s
fight
song
and
cheer.
It’s
even
better
when
your
team
has
the
talent
to
meet
the
challenges
it
faces.
Let’s
recognize
the
difference
between
cheering
and
meeting
the
real
AI
challenges..
Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger,
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.