by
ChatGPT)
This
week,
the
10th
annual
AI
Summit
kicks
off
at
the
cavernous
Javits
Center
in
New
York
City.
The
promoters
describe
it
as
an
event
that
“[b]rings
together
visionary
leaders,
innovators
and
technologists
who
are
shaping
the
future
of
artificial
intelligence.”
The
Summit
Last
year,
there
were
over
5,000
attendees,
over
100
exhibitors,
and
350
speakers,
according
to
the
official
website.
This
year
promises
those
numbers
will
be
exceeded.
The
keynote
speakers
include
such
notables
as:
-
Matthew
C.
Fraser,
Chief
Technology
Officer,
The
City
of
New
York -
Cecilia
Kushner,
Chief
Strategy
Officer,
NYC
Economic
Development
Corporation -
Nitzan
Mekel-Bobrov,
Chief
AI
Officer,
eBay -
Anusha
Dandapani,
Chief,
AI
Hub,
United
Nations
International
Computing
Centre
(UNICC) -
Jorge
Reis-Filho,
Chief
AI
and
Data
Scientist,
Oncology
R&D,
AstraZeneca -
Terry
Doyle,
Managing
Partner,
TELUS
Global
Ventures
The
overall
speaker
lineup
reflects
AI’s
extension
from
a
tech
curiosity
10
years
ago
to
being
embedded,
for
better
or
worse,
across
government,
commerce,
finance,
and
healthcare.
Legal
can’t
afford
to
ignore
this
shift
and
its
ramifications
and
risks.
I
will
be
there
covering
for
Above
the
Law
and
reporting
what’s
being
talked
about
and
perhaps
what’s
not.
But
before
we
get
to
that,
it’s
worth
pausing
to
see
how
far
we’ve
come
in
the
decade
since
that
first
Summit
in
2016.
The
Past
10
Years
We’ve
gone
from
AlphaGo
beating
a
grand
master
at
Go
(2016)
to
LLMs
(2022)
to
chatbots
(2023)
to
agentic
AI
(2025)
to
speaking
of
AGI
as
a
realistic
possibility,
all
in
one
decade.
As
for
technology
in
general,
here’s
where
we
were
in
2016:
Amazon
released
the
Amazon
Echo
Dot
Slack
was
the
hot
new
workplace
tool with
4
million
daily
active
users
iPhone
7 was
the
newest
phone
(no
Face
ID,
and
first
haptic
home
button)
Windows
10 was
still
a
relativity
new
operating
system
Netflix
was
starting
to
compete
seriously
with
cable
The
hottest
play
was
Hamilton.
Uber
was
becoming
a
real
thing.
In
early
2016,
a
bitcoin
was
about
$400
and
WeWork
was
reportedly
valued
at
$16
billion.
And
in
legal,
in
2016:
Clio
published
its
first
Legal
Trends
Report
Most
Biglaw
firms
were
still
debating
whether
to
allow
lawyers
to
use
things
like
Dropbox for
client
files
Document
review
was
still
almost
entirely
human-powered —
predictive
coding
was
“cutting
edge”
Legal
project
management
software
was
considered
“experimental” by
most
firms
We’ve
come
a
long
way.
Which
makes
this
year’s
Summit
particularly
interesting:
has
the
AI
industry
matured
along
with
the
technology,
or
are
we
just
experiencing
the
same
hype
cycles
at
higher
and
even
dangerous
volume?
What’s
a
Lawyer
Doing
at
the
AI
Summit
I
attended
and
wrote
about
this
conference
last
year.
First
and
foremost,
it’s
an
opportunity
to
escape
the
legal
tech
conference
bubble
and
see
and
hear
what
people
in
other
businesses
and
professions
are
thinking
about
and
doing.
Like
CES,
which
I’ll
cover
early
next
year,
it
often
provides
fresh
perspectives.
Of
course,
with
a
conference
this
size,
it’s
sometimes
hard
to
get
a
good
handle
on
what’s
really
important.
There
are
11
tracks
(the
Summit
calls
them
stages)
with
sessions
that
overlap.
That
makes
planning
challenging.
Indeed,
as
I
wrote
last
year,
I
have
the
feeling
that
the
conference
sometimes
tries
too
hard
and
to
do
too
much.
That
doesn’t
make
it
a
bad
conference,
just
a
challenging
one.
Also,
like
most
big
conferences,
the
AI
Summit
is
driven
by
vendors
and
exhibitors
and
is
by
design
a
bit
of
a
rah-rah
event
celebrating
AI.
That
also
doesn’t
necessarily
make
it
all
bad,
but
like
CES,
you
have
to
take
some
of
what’s
said
and
exhibited
with
a
grain
of
salt.
The
Sessions
There’s
a
huge
and
daunting
number
of
sessions.
Many
are
highly
technical
and
some
are
vendor
specific.
But
many
are
educational
focusing
on
where
we
are
with
AI
and
how
AI
platforms
can
be
practically
implemented.
Among
other
things,
I’m
approaching
the
Summit
with
three
questions
drawn
from
the
recent
series
I
co-authored
with
Melissa
Rogozinski:
Will
the
sessions
acknowledge
the
crisis
confronting
the
infrastructure
required
to
support
AI
ambitions?
Will
anyone
confront
the
verification
paradox,
the
reality
that
verifying
AI
outputs
often
costs
more
than
the
efficiency
gained?
And
third,
will
the
conversation
move
beyond
vendor
enthusiasm
to
implementation
reality?
In
that
regard,
there
are
several
sessions
that
look
particularly
interesting
that
I
plan
to
attend:
-
Who
Owns
Intelligence
Wins:
Escaping
the
AI
“Rent
Trap” -
The
AI
Backbone:
How
Cutting-Edge
Infrastructure
is
Powering
the
Next
Wave
of
Innovation
in
Science
and
Industry -
Betting
It
All
on
AI:
C-Suite
Confessions
on
Risk,
Reward,
and
Reality -
Venture
Capitalist
Matchmaking:
Finding
Your
Perfect
Fit -
The
Investor’s
Crystal
Ball:
What’s
Next?
I’m
hoping
that
at
least
some
of
these
sessions
will
get
at
the
very
things
we
talked
about
in
our
series:
infrastructure
requirements
that
may
not
be
met
as
AI
platforms
expand,
economic
models
that
don’t
quite
add
up,
and
the
persistent
gap
between
what
vendors
promise
and
what
businesses
can
actually
implement.
The
question
is
whether
presenters
will
confront
these
realities
or
perpetuate
comfortable
fictions.
What
Else
I
May
be
Watching
I
also
plan
to
attend
the
City
of
New
York’s
presentation
on
using
AI
to
improve
access
to
justice.
I
wrote
about
what
the
City
was
doing
last
year
and
its
impact;
it
will
be
interesting
to
see
where
the
City
is
this
year.
There’s
also
a
smattering
of
sessions
on
AI
and
its
impact
on
people
and
cybersecurity.
There
are
sessions
on
determining
ROI
of
AI,
how
it
can
be
used
to
enhance
storytelling
and
creativity,
along
with
more
philosophical
sessions
on
the
role
of
regulation.
Of
course,
agentic
AI
is
front
and
center.
I’ll
also
focus
on
sessions
covering
the
tension
between
innovation
and
regulation,
case
studies
in
real-world
deployment,
cross-industry
comparisons,
training,
and,
perhaps
most
critically,
sessions
addressing
hallucinations
and
the
verification
paradox
we’ve
been
writing
about.
Game
Time
Yes,
if
it
sounds
like
there’s
more
than
I
can
possibly
cover,
you’re
right.
My
conference
plan
isn’t
set
in
stone.
Like
most
of
these
conferences,
I’ll
make
game-time
decisions
based
on
where
the
substance
is
and
what
I’m
hearing.
It
should
be
interesting.
Will
the
Summit
confront
the
questions
about
AI
infrastructure,
verification
costs,
and
implementation
reality?
Or
will
it
be
another
celebration
of
potential
without
accountability?
Will
sessions
examine
AI
for
societal
good?
Or
will
it
be
all
AI
for
AI’s
sake?
Stay
tuned.
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.