law.MIT.edu Podcast Episode 7 with guest Olga Mack

[Music] good morning good afternoon or good evening wherever you may be in the world my name is David Horgan and this is the law. mit.edu podcast with dazza Greenwood and me the law. mit.edu is a podcast that explores the rapidly changing worlds of Law and Technology as our Our Lives become increasingly more digitized it's important more important than ever to start thinking about about reimagining and re-engineering the law and how it interacts with technology each episode we're joined by thought leaders from around the world in order to demystify and break down the complex topics at the intersection of Law and technology and help you better tackle the topics now of course a gentleman who needs no introduction our partner here at the law. mit.edu is in fact the executive director our good friend daza Greenwood daza what's up for today and what's our topic a thank you so much David um and you know the the topic today is one near and dear to my heart and actually that is captured the focus of of the entire law. mit.edu research team and also our publication MIT computational law report that is none other than generative AI for Law and we're going to do a deep dive into one of the key implications of what does it mean to successfully use this technology when you're practicing law but you know I don't want any spoilers yet at this point we're just introducing ourselves and so that's who I am that's what I'm doing here and Dave take us to the next step all right thank you daza and to say that we have a consumate expert with us today on this subject would be a drastic understatement Our Guest today is Olga Mack many of you in the world of legal technology know Olga Olga VM is a vice president at Lexus Nexus where she serves as vice president and CEO of council link CLM formerly known as parley Pro uh Olga was the CEO of parley Pro a contract life cycle management platform which was acquired by Lexus Nexus in 2022 and here's where we get into a true Renaissance legal technologist in addition to her work uh bringing technology to Legal teams ogga is an accomplished attorney having served as commissioner on the California law revision commission and as the general Council of the SAS firm clear side uh as well as the general counil of the Pacific Art League council at visa and uh council at zus and we'll get more into that later in the broadcast because we'll find some interesting connections to the world of legal technology uh earlier in her career she worked in big law at Wilson sansini and if that weren't enough she's a former assistant district attorney in San Francisco Olga Mack welcome to the law. mit.edu podcast well hello everyone David good to see you daza I love that jacket amazing you didn't have to dress for me but look amazing I'm really excited about this conversation and we are too and uh we're just disappointed that we cannot share uh daza's vibrant jacket with all of you because this is podcast land but let us just say that daza is looking terrific and very spiffy today hi Barbie hi Ken hi daza it is bright pink it it is beautiful it's it's a shade of pink for the listeners and uh daza in in the jacket shade of pink is a beautiful site no doubt about that all right we're gonna start off today's broadcast with a little bit of a quiz and um I'm going to ask Olga and daza if they have heard or have any familiarity with this with some of these cases we've got shabon V Egypt Air a 2013 decision out of the first dist first pellet District in Illinois we've got Peterson via Ron a from the District of the District of Columbia a federal decision from 2012 uh Martinez V Delta Airlines we're getting a theme Here of uh something in the air it's a Texas appell deis from 2019 a state of Duran V KLM Royal Dutch Airlines a Georgia State Court case from 2017 or perhaps erck the American Airlines uh from the appell division in New Jersey 2003 um anything ring a bell these cases seem familiar to you at all have you ever seen them in a law book perhaps wow yeah I think I these are these are like the dream cases that I most want to site in a brief wow a dream like a hallucination perhaps yeah it's exactly like these are the fake cases that chat PT shoveled the that lawyer that got in trouble in New York right uh da gets this one you are correct sir these are the fake citations from mat V aanka Inc and um we're gonna get Olga's expert opinion on some of the things that come up in this case one of the big things is supervision and I think a lot of you have heard about this case but we'll just give you some brief background uh Mr ma was uh traveling on an aanka air flight um from El Salvador to JFK and uh you know I'm 6'4 we have had a lot of tall people and sometimes if you're really tall you're cramped in that seat your leg may be in the aisle well the drink cart comes down the aisle and allegedly once again facts are not decided yet but allegedly the drink cart comes and smacks Mr ma in the leg um litigation ensues and so um his lawyers were getting ready for a filing and I believe it was on a statute of limitations issue so um they file some cases with the court and the court is thinking something seems odd here and specifically it was one of the 11th circuit citations that tripped him up and so the court actually called down to the 11th circuit and was like hey have you ever heard of this case and they're like uh no well you know where this goes um one of the attorneys had actually just asked chat GPT for some legal citations and chat GPT spat them all out and they were all fake uh there were sanctions involved in this case um and the supervision issue is on this the case was originally a state court case it was removed to federal court and the attorney signing and giving the affirmation on the ones was not the one doing the legal research he was the one who was admitted to practice in the southern district of New York in federal court so his um legal colleague was the one who was doing the uh research with our good robot friend chat GPT and uh never bothered to check I'm thinking well if it's chat GPT it must be correct so Olga ma we've got um issues of generative AI we've got uh issues of the supervision of attorneys uh we think about our model rules of professional conduct rule 5.1 on the responsibilities of a partner or supervisory lawyer rule 5.2 responsibilities of a subordinate lawyer but uh so we've got as I so don't leave rule don't forget rule 11 oh yes daza I would be negligent on that one so we've got we've got all these issues plus generative AI thrown on top um what's your first takeaway Olga Wow first takeway there's a lot of takes aways um look as we know hallucinations is a real problem with generative AI U or just hallucinations generally uh this technology is designed to to please us us and sometimes what pleases us is doesn't exist in the world you know if you ever been married had relationship with anyone you know a good well-intended compliment that may not necessarily correspond to reality improves marriage um or any relationship for that matter and and Chad GPT pleases us it it knows we're looking for something it really wants to give it to us and then it does who cares that it doesn't exist wait the court cares the court actually cares that it does exist and that's inconvenient um so my first reaction is we either need to solve the hallucination problem or we really need to fix our courts because they just raining in our parades when we hear what we want to hear I jokes aside I mean listen any anytime you you you do anything as a lawyer it is your job to make sure that the stuff is good when you do a filing in court you put your signature on it whether it's because you appear or some you appear in somebody else's beh help you are the holder of your license that means you need to be comfortable in whatever representations are made whether they're factual or actually law representation in this case clearly if all this case Lo doesn't exist it only exists because it pleases you that's while satisfying on some level not satisfying to the court um and so yeah so many failures of competence supervision all kinds of things um and that just means really in the end of the day low technology competence which leads to you know Mal practice essentially uh and inappropriate use of your license and including your economic ability to earn living by practicing law you know um a Jeopardy sure okay um you know legal Tech as well as anyone you were a 2020 fast case 50 Award winner um you received the women of legal Tech in 2022 from the American Bar Association you know this stuff and it's often been said that technology can be the great equalizer for legal teams allowing the small firms to compete with the big ones you have been a general counsel for smaller organizations you've also practiced in big law what do you think uh we have a firm that got into trouble on this one but do you feel that technology and let's go a step further say genitor genit generative AI can be can level the playing field from the small firms and the big firms look I think technology is an opportunity for us to redesign what we find unsatisfying with the world today I think technology gives us a a restart um just kind of like what you have with a computer every time it does wonky things you push you basically restart it I think that's what technology allows us to do there's a lot of things that are unfair andjust um you know including the fact that you know smaller players don't always have an opportunity to have an impact for example smaller law firms and I absolutely agree that something like generative AI technology can give un represented player or smaller player or newcomer I I sit at the table you know I shot in the game um with that comes also an implicit understand understanding that you need to understand the thing that helps you you know with that right comes a massive responsibility uh because technology and I I I I I feel like I say it all the time now is a sharp knife um it is it could be used to cure and it could be used to kill and the difference is going to be that Delta is going to be a knowledgeable oper a person or or a collection of people are more likely to do good with a sharp tool if there are trained operators who have an analytical framework of getting from point A to point B have a definition of success um and who possibly have done it before um and if you have none of that then you are lost and you may be misusing the tool you may be in danger to yourself in danger to others and you can be with this tool in danger to Society at large because this this tool actually allows you to mislead for example at scale and that could be very damaging that's why this tool specifically J AI could solve a lot of things but could also be that that knife that kills great great analogy as um unfortunate as the end result may be let's take it a step further and daza it'd be great to get you in on this as well um a lot has been said about the invasion of the robots we've talked about the level of the playing field but um and we we talked about maybe it can level the playing field but is there really the concern that it's going to take people's jobs we have the strike right now going on with the writers and the actors in Hollywood we have we have a lot of people in the legal Community concerned about boy is this going to take all our jobs do you think uh both of you do you think it's more of a tool to help or do you think there's a legitimate concern that we're all going to be working for the robots pretty soon or not have any jobs wow um well I I did want to pop in um on that and also to maybe um deepen the question a little bit for for Ola um but to me just the the framing around the the matter case um I think is so intriguing because and the reason I mentioned rule 11 is the the the fundamental um obligation is to practice law competently which means you know checking sites um ensuring that the legal arguments are in the best interest of of your client etc etc um and you know in rule 11 um codifies that obligation for filings representations to a court you know that among other things that you you you've done your job you've got some due diligence you have an evidentiary basis for the assertions that you're making in the first instance um but I think this is so fascinating precisely because um precisely be well so just on that one I'll stick on that for one second and then I want to really talk about supervision primarily but to me that seems like that's another way of saying there's a there's a critical role for a human with respect to the use of generative AI which is competently expertly diligently reviewing assessing evaluating you know critiquing and correcting or outright rejecting the outputs of generative AI that that is the essence of practicing law um and it's it's so interesting because of the duty of supervision I feel like plays out in multiple ways here um in terms of like the lawyer job um preservation um like act of 2024 and Beyond um it's like not it seems like it's not merely super supervising or I guess it's a question is it just supervising people who are using generative AI or does the duty of supervision is have its own veilance with respect to supervising the tool and the process itself so I I guess I'd love to to learn more about that but all of this whoever is doing the due diligence and the law practice whoever is doing the supervision these are all human beings and so I do feel like we're not replacing humans we're we're supercharging humans with the technology and we're um further honing and applying our duties in light of the technology but that raises these open questions it's new technology how do we apply them and like and I'd love to dig much more deeply into into the this human role of supervision and how that plays out in the in all the various ways that this technolog is going to be used what do you think Olga you know look duty of supervision I mean I've done recently quite a lot of research and things thinking about it a couple of things it's it's not unique to lawyers first of all other professions have it either codified or as matter of practice that's observation number one observation number two it is also not unique to United States lawyers it pretty much one way or another exists in most democracies and most places where you see lawyers um so it's a pretty Universal Beauty really one way or another and then observation three what I find is that what it means is actually a point in time question um it started sort of with this sort of traditional apprenticeship model which which used to exist in every part of human society from artists to lawyers to Publishers to whatever um it it sort of started with today in includes things like ensuring work quality promoting ethical conduct providing training uh managing cases maintaining client Community like includes all kinds of stuff but it change over time a change over time from something you watch me do it and then you can do the same to something more like let me show you best practices here's how to deal with privacy issues and ethical concerns and I think where it is evolving into something much more comprehensive that includes things like supervising technology we're moving away from supervision meaning you train to build a lawyer because we now have law schools really and we have um bar exam that kind of like takes care of a lot of this like early Apprentice stuff now sort of in the beginning of your career just to make sure that you like don't get you know you don't sink in the pool completely but it involved into something more of sort of helping you coach you through career doing the right thing and thinking through ethics and then not just a lawyer who is who who just graduated from from law school but also May vendors because their results could be input in your filings and you are certifying that you supervise them for example so it involved into much more than apprenticeship model to much more comprehensive sort of general duty of supervision of all kinds of stuff and I think where this is all going is that supervising technology too and we've been basically certifying with ecovery for example it's already been there but now we have what you know what David described as Rob robots is here and we may be working for them I'm not sure this is where we're going robots will still be working for us for quite a while and it will be our duty according to model rules to supervise them I'm pretty sure that is not a stretch of of the rules we have today and I think other professions will be supervising and codifying or at least developing best practices about how to do it I'm gonna step here because I can talk about it all day but in a nutsh that those are the S three trends that I see that's great um by the way and we may not be working for the robots because if the recent Congressional testimony means anything we may be working for the Martian soon um if you've heard about that and this is not some inebriated guy on a Cessna these are long longterm United States Military Officers testifying that uh yeah you know there was biological material they brought them in so um we may have bigger things to worry about than the generative AI robots but daa it was great that you brought up rule 11 um because the court of course cites rule 11 in mavad Bianca and specifically rule 11 C1 um providing that absent exceptional circumstances a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a law for a violation committed by its associates or employees and we talked about the model rules of professional conduct 5.1 and 5.2 um and 5.1 is basically I'm gonna paraphrase it but it's basically saying hey partner supervisory lawyers you're responsible for um what your lawyer do and then 52 goes on from there saying that um you know um the subordinate lawyers just because your boss told you to do an illegal thing doesn't mean you're off the hook you've got to follow the rules instead of that so when you're thinking about the rules and thinking about this situation do you think that lawyers think about what they could do with generative AI I I have to admit if I were the supervisory attorney in this case even though the world changed a lot on November 30th of the last year when uh generative AI really hit the uh hit the whole nation the world Etc um is it reasonable to think that someone may have gone and checked that I wouldn't have thought gee I need to ask him did he use generative AI to do this is it now I mean a lot of people have heard of it but uh how does AI change the rules of the ball game here do we need to now add it into the federal rules of civil procedure that there are rules on using chat GPT for evidence I mean at the White House recently some of the leading Tech CEOs gathered with the president to talk about voluntary guidelines do we need to put generative AI into the rules Olga what do you think as as a technologist whove been in SAS data AI ml blockchain crypto and numerous other disruptive Technologies before they were cool and earned their Buzz I know the need your reaction is to regulate technology but really laws regulate behaviors and sometimes when it's hard to regulate behaviors they they kind of focus on impact and outcomes that's sort of our standard way to to write laws I kind of think we should stick to that um I think it works generally speaking um I think the rule of supervision is there it is clear enough it has has extended over time as I just talked about I don't think it's a massive stretch to Extended to supervision of machines whatever shape form they come into our lives uh what that is not to say that we're all great ready to go I think there are pieces missing here's the pieces that are missing what's missing is the how what's missing is the analytical structure what's missing with definition of success that's what's missing and I can kind of maybe talk a little bit in Greater depths about it the rule is pretty simple and definitely applies to human I guarantee you if you serve with 20 100 to, lawyers or professionals don't piic on professionals they will have different approaches to supervision different definitions of success and different ways they deal with shortcomings of their supervi individual supervising models we do not let me finish we do not teach law students what it means to be a good supervisor I I had once been assigned a gentleman to be my mentor after he ignored me for about three months we ended up in the same elevator this gentleman happened to be always very well dressed and as we were going down in the elevator this gentleman was a lawyer from a 30 floor to the 1 we had a brief exchange where he said oh I realize I need to be your mentor and let me give you practical advice when you travel make sure you bring an extra suit because sometimes you spill stuff all over yourself and you need to change I'm sure he meant well and this is why sounds solid and in his mind he checked the box of mentoring me I can tell you as a junior lawyer I got off that elevator confused confused whether he thinks my suit was not up to par whether he thinks I'm a slug because I'm likely to spill stuff all over myself whether he thinks I don't know how to pack uh and generally felt that the excitement about this senior lawyer mentoring me would extend to something more exciting like how I practice law uh but in his mind this was very practical and useful and he meant well and I think we're both right we just operate from a different intellectual space of what it means to be a supervisor and a mentor and what's helpful to a junior lawyer and I think it's just an extreme example right but if you know people do not have a shared definition of success of supervision they have no analytical framework of what it means to how to do it and they absolutely don't have a way to measure whether they're doing a good job that's with people that's before we get to machines now when you add AI on top of the fact that we already don't know what we're doing then it's hard the problem is not the law it's operationalizing the next steps envisioning success and measuring results yeah you know with um I do a lot of mentoring um as part of the role at at MIT with the younger students and um it's so important to tune the mentoring to to the mentee to the person you're talking to and to really understand them uh I'm sorry that happened to you it reminds me a little bit of um when I was a very young lawyer um I got kind of thrown in the deep end very quickly in a state government and uh with respect to technology and I ended up testifying the first time I testified in Congress um I was young like in my 20s and I um had my suit I kind of flew down to DC like clockwork dumped a bunch of horrible things over breakfast on my suit I couldn't wear the jacket um I did have an extra shirt um which I put on and then the staff wouldn't allow me to get onto the the senate committee um room not wearing a jacket I had a tie but they're like you can't do it I I think it's relaxed so they ended up finding a jacket for me that was like I don't know five sizes too small looked like one of those monkeys with a crank or something was horrible but you know um in my case as someone who apparently was a SLO like that actually could have been good advice to me but you have to tune the advice to the person it has to be meaningful you can't just check a box and and you're right we have so far to go with s with what does it mean to Mentor what does supervision mean um how do we make it effective how can we rely upon it when so many people don't know what it is how to measure it or how to do it it's it's a whole new horizon and that's that's with humans right and with humans you can you know at least if you your EQ is a little higher you can say he da a tell me where you're in life you know tell me what your biggest challenge is how can I be help like that's easily solved and I I do think this gentleman meant well and clearly would be helpful in some circumstances and but with machine you really need to have an approach you need to have a definition success and you need to be able to deal with setbacks and today we basically telling laes you have you have a rule you have a duty go do it do a good job if you fail you may be disbar in your economic right to make a living as a lawyer that you work so hard maybe lost good luck May the odds be in your favor which bring us to what you said in in in the end of your your statement is what's missing is how we have the rules the rules are pretty well adapted are are are capable of being applied to different circumstances and new technologies but we're not born knowing this stuff the technology is new and I feel like I'd be um remiss if I didn't mention that Olga is also an esteemed member of the law. mit.edu task force on the use of generative AI for law practice and uh which is recently published um principles and guidelines to hope we hope helped us begin to put meat on the bones for how to apply our existing rules of professional uh responsibility to the use of generative Ai and one of those rules is I think the principle seven is supervision um and but we're just scratching the the the tip of the iceberg here uh in terms of how to do it and really there are going to need to be rubrics and practices and you know examples that are here's a good example of how to do it here's a bad example of how to do it like we've got a there's a big open space there and half of using generative AI is getting the prompt right the other half or maybe 60 70 80 90% is is evaluating properly the outputs be before working it in and that that really is the essence of the supervision isn't it that rule needs to be operationalized that's that's business feed we need to take the rule and create a framework and then based on that through examples and checklists allow folks to do a good job and measure success and have a shared definition of success um and we we that that's a standard operation procedure in any complex task and make no mistake supervising anything or anyone is a complex task it requires a framework it requires a checklist and it requires a vision of success and so I think that's the part where the void needs to be filled to answer David's original question I don't I think we have enough laws in the book that doing the right thing um not committing fraud um not lying stealing cheating like the basics things that law is really just sort of encouraging what I call Civil Society what people call civil society and good behaviors we have enough of that on the books you don't have to regulate technology you regulate behaviors you can extend much of what we already have to any technology what's missing is analytical framework sometimes this is where um like trade organizations like ABA could be helpful or um maybe Regulatory Agencies could be helpful or professionals getting together could be helpful and sort of development of examples scenarios uh best practices checklist checklists are key those things need to be happening with supervision for humans or machines we've got a real theme going on today of do your homework and how supervision comes in different ways you know you were telling stories from way back when when I was much younger we were working on a case and we were in Vere and doing the jury selection and um we got back and we're in the room conferring one of the prospective jurors had worked with opposing Council and so I'm the young guy there and I pipe up well we've got to strike her they used to work together and the senior partner goes nope we are not going to waste a strike on her and he could see I had this quizzical look on my face and he goes that guy is a bleep that's not what he said um he said if she worked with him she's got to hate him they'll strike him we're not they'll strike her we're not goingon to waste a strike sure enough that's exactly what they did and it saved us a strike and so I was the young kid who didn't know any of that stuff but it equates to what we're talking about and supervision comes in many many ways and it's knowing the people and sometimes generative AI is not going to know the people and know the case law but on this deal about different ways of supervising Olga you are the quintessential American lawyer you're a graduate of the University of California Berkeley School of Law member of the California bar you've worked for major American law firms but in your work as a general counsel here in the United States you've also had had big International experience some of these are international companies doing international business and in fact um you immigrated here from Ukraine at a very young age so you are not having tunnel vision in the US when you think about this supervision do you find that it differs in different parts of the world yeah so I've done a lot of research and I definit as as somebody who was born elsewhere and English is my second language and I travel quite a lot and have been in company was massive Footprints of United States I I I I have a sort of much sort of to this rule of law concept I have a my sort of worldly presence uh what I do find is that the duty of supervision is actually pretty Universal definitely across uh democracies um and where you see high concentration of lawyers which is like Asia EU Brazil places like like that uh you definitely have some sort of codified way uh of du supervisions uh they all emphasize uh competence as a critical aspect of supervision um they emphasize uh supervisory responsibilities such as work quality ethical conduct uh oversiz all of that is sort of universally recognized um client service and acting in client best interest those are really common them um there is sort of a very very degree of specificity and details and there's definitely enough differences but but I would say to me overwhelmingly those things are have a lot in common um they uh some of the countries include sort of the themes around business management others don't uh and some have sort of more specific uh guid lines and some have sort more Regional EU if you practicing if there you know if you as a member country in united in the in European Union you may belong to the uh equivalent of the bar there but you also may be a u EU lawyer as well so you may have overlapping duties of supervision so I I would say it's close enough in most jurisdiction there are difference in special specificity but it is definitely there it is common things and I would go as far as saying that they more or less evolve over time and long steps so of expectations of of of broadening that duty to include vendors to include ethics to include technology all of that I think is very much uh Rising around the same level across regions Olga one thing that we like to do on the law. mit.edu podcast is get to know our guests now we've um known you professionally for many years but uh our audience may not be familiar with some parts of your career journey and one of the things that we found interesting was your work as an assistant general counsel at zus and for those of you who may not be familiar with it it is an online dating service operating in 80 Nations all over the world um 25 different languages um it seems to be a great collection of many of the issues you've got online you've got data you I assume have personal information what was it like being the lawyer for the online dating service I joke that I should have retired after working at Zeus because I think I pi as an interesting person then I can tell you when I would show up to parties and declare that I'm a lawyer I was a number two lawyer I was a associate General councel there um that I'm a lawyer for enlighting dating conference most people in the room I would I would say all but that's probably an overstatement would find me fascinating and interesting they would come to me and ask me about advice and um and what it's like and things willing to share and things I'm not will I I was like literally the most interesting person in the room I can tell you that joining a SAS company was a was a massive downgrade and legal and illegal tag did not improve my odds um and and so it was a really really fascinating um place to work because it's really something you know I find that love is a relatable thing to to everyone we all one way or another had an adventure in love whether it's it's you know a successful Adventure or the one that taught us a lesson or the one that uh allowed us to grow whatever that thing was we all felt it deeply and strongly and so uh finding a lawyer who who helps people fall in love is a deeply fascinating thing um that particular company was very interesting for many reasons it's definitely not the one and only company today but at the time it was one of the first online dating companies on the internet so we're talking about early days of internet and the two Founders and and the staff they hired um were innovators truly innovators and yes love but let's break down love into into something more scientific and make it completely uninteresting um let's talk about data because online dating companies is a consumer facing business and online dating company operates across geography and for online dating company to be successful you have to basically rely on data one way or another for at least two things one uh marketing because that's how you acquire users and two product development because you need to figure out you know what makes people fall in love and be interested and go on the first day and ultimately you know figure out a way to make that relationship successful so you know behind the heart there is data and to me that business if you take all the sort Jokes Aside was very interesting because I I see of any online dating company or including Zeus as essentially a data company we had a lot of data scientists on the team I was I was advising uh various uses of data at the time where um CCPA was developing and gdpr was in its infancy and it's actually not all that different from the time we have today with AI the when you have uh a void in laws and practices best practices um you see you have a Delta between law and you have a Delta between law and the right thing to do and depending who you talk to that Delta could be big or small and your job as in-house lawyer or risk professional of any kind is really to have sophisticated conversations about that because what you know for sure is that the void will be filled with increasing number of regulations and that may take three five 10 years depending on industry and at some point you will be judged inside 2020 and so you can take an opportunistic view and say in the absence of anything let's let's do the minimal let's do the floor because there's a void or you can be an enlightened leader you really are fa with that choice you can you can talk about the cealing you can talk about what is the right thing to do what kind of world you and your children should be living in if somebody handled data like this for you how would you want them to behave would that look good um on internet or newspaper at all of those conversation and really kind of figure out what the Delta is and whether how close to the ceiling or floor what is the consciousness of your organization and I really enjoyed that job uh because for that reason in the context of a dating company not only is it a data company it's a data company that collects a lot of information and we're not just talking about names like cards numbers locations we're talking about intimate things that you may not even share with people in your life that are you're close to like your parents like for example It's Not Unusual for online dating company to collect whether you have STDs your sexual orientation all kinds of stuff that not on your LinkedIn that your parents may or may not know hey your spouse may or may not know uh all kinds of stuff that is very just just private um and so it was really interesting for me as I consider myself a privacy professional um to me that's being part of technology lawyer and um thinking through the issues of doing the right thing through the ethics of it um was very interesting and we are facing exactly the same challenges today with AI while we do have enough laws in the books um things like ethical considerations thinking about an impact of what you're developing in AI those are not codified just yet um and so many companies developing AI today are forced to think about what is the right thing to do which I think you know David mentioning that open Ai and other players went to Congress and asking for it that's one approach to do it but also you can engage in that exercise with competent consult and I guarantee you you may not get everything exactly right that's going to happen in the future but I guarantee you that if you get technologist lawyers business Professionals in the room who are competent and who have Consciousness and want to build a good world I guarantee you you will end up with really good outcome maybe not exactly right but pretty close a call for lawyers with a conscience as well as experience on the much more entertaining world of being a lawyer to help people fall in love Olga V Mac vice president and CEO of council link CLM Renaissance lawyer former law enforcement official former uh the general counsel of a couple of firms it has been a real pleasure having you here today and thank you for your insights on generative Ai and as this thing uh concludes I hope you'll come back and join us and daza as usual would you like to close us out I would love to and I want to second that thank you so much for for sharing your time so generously and your insights and admonitions Olga and um you know it's it's this is what makes uh David and I and la. mit.edu want to do the podcast as kind of substantive and that's say entertaining programming and so uh we hope that you will join us again for our next episode of this podcast and until then we look forward to seeing you at law. mit.edu [Music]