Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ADKM" data-source="post: 146101" data-attributes="member: 25667">Recently, came across a really interesting piece on the FT where Christopher Nolan spoke about his latest release, Oppenheimer. He said that Oppenheimer is very much a cautionary tale. America wanted to overtake Nazi Germany in the nuclear arms race but J Robert Oppenheimer resisted this move saying measures need to be taken to control the international nuclear arms race, but his opinions were met with stiff resistance from the US Congress. The idea was for the US to retain sovereignty as the foremost nuclear power in the world.In the present era, Nolan compares this with the AI trend. My view on this topic is that I feel Nolan makes a very strong point saying this aggressive pursuit of AI investments is only for profit. I don't think he is wrong, ultimately if AI continues to progress without being regulated, it will only affect the end consumer. However, I also think this lack of regulatory oversight presents lots of work for regulatory/tech/data-privacy lawyers in terms of having a say in developing legislation to control AI. I also think with AI booming so much, and investors looking for investment opportunities, corporate/M&amp;A/private equity lawyers will always be inundated with work in terms of advising clients on potential acquisition strategies or JVs. But if AI is regulated, I believe the environment will become more streamlined and investments can start coming from varied avenues and industries, consequently opening up more work for commercial lawyers. Would love to know your thoughts on this [USER=8521]@Jake Rickman[/USER]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ADKM, post: 146101, member: 25667"] Recently, came across a really interesting piece on the FT where Christopher Nolan spoke about his latest release, Oppenheimer. He said that Oppenheimer is very much a cautionary tale. America wanted to overtake Nazi Germany in the nuclear arms race but J Robert Oppenheimer resisted this move saying measures need to be taken to control the international nuclear arms race, but his opinions were met with stiff resistance from the US Congress. The idea was for the US to retain sovereignty as the foremost nuclear power in the world. In the present era, Nolan compares this with the AI trend. My view on this topic is that I feel Nolan makes a very strong point saying this aggressive pursuit of AI investments is only for profit. I don't think he is wrong, ultimately if AI continues to progress without being regulated, it will only affect the end consumer. However, I also think this lack of regulatory oversight presents lots of work for regulatory/tech/data-privacy lawyers in terms of having a say in developing legislation to control AI. I also think with AI booming so much, and investors looking for investment opportunities, corporate/M&A/private equity lawyers will always be inundated with work in terms of advising clients on potential acquisition strategies or JVs. But if AI is regulated, I believe the environment will become more streamlined and investments can start coming from varied avenues and industries, consequently opening up more work for commercial lawyers. Would love to know your thoughts on this [USER=8521]@Jake Rickman[/USER] [/QUOTE]

Verification

Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?

Search

Search

Reply to thread