Protecting Human Creativity from AI’s Grip (Haochen Sun Profiled in HKU Bulletin)

"Protecting Human Creativity from AI’s Grip"

Haochen Sun

HKU Bulletin
Published in May 2026

Professor Haochen Sun of the Faculty of Law has been looking at the threats to human creativity from AI, and possible legal and ethical remedies.

Every big AI platform has faced lawsuits for using existing creative works to train their models without permission or compensation, with plaintiffs ranging from Hollywood studios to media outlets to individual artists and authors. For Professor Haochen Sun, Founding Director of HKU’s Programme on Artificial Intelligence and the Law and an expert in technology law and policy, this use of creative works is a legal and ethical problem for both creators and society.

“These works are the foundation of our human civilisation. They embody human thought, from philosophy to literature, music and art, and they should be highly valued. When they’re used in the AI training process, it demeans their value by transforming them into tokens. What would be the implications, then, for the future of human creativity?” he asked.

Using content without permission is problematic on several fronts, he said. First, whoever controls the inputs to the AI training process can shape how AI develops and makes decisions, so the creators who provide that input could be excluded.

Second, there is the possibility that copyright protection could extend to AI-generated material, knowingly or not. While most jurisdictions do not allow this (apart from one judge in the Chinese Mainland who decided that an AI prompt was creative input), Professor Sun believes there is little to stop humans from presenting AI content as their own.

“It’s so easy to conceal this content and pretend it was made by a human,” he said. “I can foresee that an enormous amount of AI-generated content, ranging from text answers to images and videos, could end up being protected by copyright law because the threshold as the law stands – called the ‘originality requirement’ – is extremely low.”

In awe of AI

In such a scenario, ‘AI copyright trolls’ may be incited to launch lawsuits to see what they could extract. Most importantly, content flows to the public domain would be restricted, ultimately harming human creativity......

Click here to read the full text.

Gary Meggitt on Insurance Brokers and AI (New Book Chapter)

"Insurance Brokers and AI"
Gary Meggitt
in Commercial Insurance Law: Emerging Trends and New Perspectives, edited by Barış Soyer (Routledge, February 2026), Chapter 11, pp.209-234
Published online: February 2026

Abstract: It is a widespread fear that thousands of gainfully employed people will soon be made redundant and replaced by Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems. Yet, insofar as insurance brokers are concerned, that anxiety has been replaced by a growing belief that the “human element” of the role – including the relationships with clients and insurers – remains essential and irreplaceable. Indeed, many brokers now expect AI systems such as Marsh McLennan’s LenAI to enable them to focus on such activities.

Yet concerns remain. Principally, how will AI systems affect brokers’ obligations to policyholders and others?

LITE Lab@HKU and Brian Tang's work on LawTech and education in 2025

LITE Lab@HKU’s Brian Tang impacting AI’s role in legaltech development and education in 2025

Brian Tang, the Founding executive director of Law, Innovation, Technology & Entrepreneurship Lab at HKU’s Faculty of Law (LITE Lab@HKU), has had an impactful year in 2025 as the third year since ChatGPT’s launch passes.

Appointment by Hong Kong Department of Justice to develop lawtech in Hong Kong

At the beginning of 2025, Brian was appointed and joined the inaugural meeting of Hong Kong Department of Justice (DOJ)’s Consultation Group on Lawtech Development for the term of January 13, 2025 to January 12, 2028. At the first of a series of the DOJ’s LexGoTech Roundtables (June), Brian was the keynote speaker and then also served as a facilitator for the roundtable comprising legal professionals from the Law Society of Hong Kong and the Small and Medium Law Firms Association of Hong Kong. Brian was later also invited to present at Hong Kong Legal Week 2025 Lawtech Week’s  Insight Stage (November), at which the LexGoTech Roundtables Report was also released.

Thought leadership on AI in the legal profession

Brian has continued to speak at numerous industry and academic this past year: HKU Law’s Regulating AI in the Public Interest (February), vlex AI Legal Focus Group – Hong Kong (February), HKU Law’s Hong Kong Lawtech Startup Ecosystem (March), ALB Hong Kong Regulatory and Anti-Corruption Compliance Summit (March), LexisNexis’ Legal Minds, Digital Tools: Partnering with AI for Better Outcomes (April), ALITA x LITE Lab@HKU Evolutions in legal practice: how AI is transforming law firm and legal department operating models (May), 6th Lawtech Summit Asia 2025 in Singapore (May), Future Law 2025 in Tallinn (May), ALITA-ELTA Asia-Pacific – European Legal Innovation & Tech Dialogue and Curated Pitches in London (June), LegalTechTalk 2025 in London (June), Legal Innovation Festival x ALITA Roundtable (September), SMU Law’s Computational Legal Studies Workshop 2025 in Singapore (September), TechLawFest 2025 in Singapore (September), Hong Kong In-House Community Congress 2025 (October), and Hong Kong Law Society Practice Management Committee “Legal AI: Ethics, Opportunities & Risks” Seminar” (November).  

In addition, Brian has been invited to be a judge for FT Innovative Lawyers APAC and was quoted in “Law firm training highlights business relationships and tech skills” (May). And in augmenting  his leadership role as  Asia-Pacific Legal Innovation & Technology Association (ALITA) co-chair, Brian served as chief editor for ALITA State of Legal Innovation in Asia-Pacific 2025 (which publication was covered in industry publications such as Artificial Lawyer, Law.com and Law Gazette), and led ALITA’s response to Singapore Ministry of Law’s Public Consultation on Guide for Using Generative AI in the Legal Sector (September).

Thought leadership on AI in broader society

Brian has also been appointed a founding member of Fintech Association of Hong Kong AI Strategic Council and hosted the inaugural panel on AI Regulation and Opportunities in Financial Services (January), and has spoken at Asia Financial Forum 2025 on Regtech Revolution (January), Cyberport AI in Finance Solution Day (March) and Hong Kong Data Summit 2025 (June). He was one of the few invitees from Asia-Pacific to attend International Association for Safe and Ethical Artificial Intelligence (IASEAI)  Conference 2025 in Paris (February).

Thought leadership on AI in Education and specifically at Law Schools

Brian continues to support HKU’s initiatives on incorporating AI ethically in teaching and learning. He spoke at HKU TALIC AI Ethics in Teaching and Learning Symposium (April) and was invited to present a TALIC video on Examples of How Colleagues at HKU Integrate AI and Manage Associated Risks (July), as well as at Inter-University Generative AI Hackathon for SDGs 2025 Workshop (September), at which a LITE Lab team won with a chatbot to assist Hong Kong migrant workers with their legal rights (November).

Specifically, Brian has been invited to present on his LITE Lab@HKU interdisciplinary and experiential pedagogy, including at PolyU’s Transformation of Higher Education in the AI Era: Innovation, Best Practices, and Impact together with a LITE Lab@HKU student (May), at International Future of Law Association Conference 2025 in collaboration with the Association of Law Teachers on Generative AI and the Future of Legal Education & Research at London South Bank University and Kings College (July), and at Global Alliance of Impact Lawyers (GAIL) Annual Summit 2025 hosting a JusticeTech Student AI Workshop with up to 60 students in Mexico (October).

Thought leadership on fintech and digital assets

In addition to AI, Brian continues to be invited by industry to share insights on fintech and digital assets, He joined the HKMA and SFC to present at ADB Digital Bond Forum as part of 42nd ASEAN+3 Bond Market Forum (February); presented at Australia Chamber of Commerce Finance, Legal & Tax Committee (August); at ICMA Innovation in Capital Markets during Hong Kong Fintech Week 2025 (Oct); at Citi x Bloomberg GBA Fintech Initiative (November). and was quoted by SCMP on PBOC’s announcement on digital assets (December).

Shilun Zhou on Whether chatbot-generated opinion can be trusted (International Journal of Evidence and Proof)

"Whether chatbot-generated opinion can be trusted: Application of the hearsay rule of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and inspiration for China's evidence law reform"
Shilun Zhou (PhD Candidate)
International Journal of Evidence and Proof
Published online: December 2025

Abstract: As part of its criminal justice reform, the UK Ministry of Justice issued a policy paper on the use of software-generated evidence in criminal proceedings. In response, this article consistently uses the term “chatbot-generated opinion,” while employing “chatbot testimony” metaphorically to compare chatbot responses in court to human testimony given in answer to a judge's questions. The article explores whether chatbot-generated opinion evidence can be trusted, focusing on the hearsay rule under the UK Criminal Justice Act 2003 and its implications for reforming China's evidence law. Contrary to prevailing views that exclude such evidence due to the lack of cross-examination, the article argues that chatbot opinions should not be directly accepted as testimony. It further explains that virtue jurisprudence offers an appropriate framework for identifying indicators of justified belief. Since a chatbot is incapable of having a moral motivation, this prevents judges from justifiably believing a chatbot's statement qua testimony. Introducing such an evidence analysis approach in China is significant. China's Confucian ethics and virtue jurisprudence highlight moral responsibility and motivation, providing a valuable foundation for the ongoing reform of China's evidence law and overcoming the limitations of its predominant objectivist approach to proof.

Shilun Zhou on Deconstructing ‘Responsible AI’: An Examination of Legal and Ethical Accountability Through Virtue Jurisprudence (Int J Semiot Law)

"Deconstructing ‘Responsible AI’: An Examination of Legal and Ethical Accountability Through Virtue Jurisprudence"
Shilun Zhou (PhD Candidate)
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law
Published online: November 2025

Abstract: This article deconstructs the legal semiotic of “Responsible AI” through the lens of virtue jurisprudence, addressing ethical dilemmas in technology-driven knowledge creation within the humanities. It critiques the misleading anthropomorphisation of AI, arguing that “Responsible AI” should be understood as “responsible in name only” and “accountable in reality”. By distinguishing between moral agency and legal accountability, it highlights AI’s dual legal attributes, including its anthropomorphic intelligent dimension and its distinct artificial nature. While the terms of reliability and AI could be semantically related at first glance, the virtue jurisprudence approach could distinguish the semiotic implications of “responsible AI” and “accountable AI”, by highlighting humans’ unique moral assessment capacity, which AI lacks, making AI accountable but not responsible. Emphasising such moral capacity not only justifies human’s refusal to be treated like machines but also provides a theoretical basis for a human-centred AI framework and guides the development of accountability AI in current legal practice. By examining the interplay between human virtue and technological systems, it calls for a renewed focus on human-centric ethical principles in the age of AI-driven knowledge production.

Brian Tang spoke at the seminar "Legal AI: Ethics, Opportunities & Risks" organized by the Law Society of Hong Kong's Practice Management Committee

Pictured (from left to right): Mr. Simon Chan, Mr. Brian Tang, and Mr. Alan Chiu 

On 18 November 2025, the Law Society of Hong Kong's Practice Management Committee, hosted the seminar "Legal AI: Ethics, Opportunities & Risks" which brought together Hong Kong law firm leaders to explore how AI is transforming the way lawyers work, and also the ethical, operational, and professional considerations that come with it. Mr. Brian Tang, the Executive Director of Law, Innovation, Technology & Entrepreneurship Lab (LITE Lab@HKU), has been invited to speak at this eminent event.

The seminar featured the managing and senior partners of prominent Hong Kong and international law firms Gallant, EllaLAN and Dorsey & Whitney and discussed the emerging trends, practical challenges, and how law firms can responsibly integrate AI into their practices. It also provided the opportunity to experience the latest advancements in Legal AI technology through live demonstrations and free trial sessions by Microsoft, Thomson Reuters and Lawplus, showcasing how innovative AI tools are being applied in real-world legal settings.

Brian shared how AI is changing the technological and market landscape for skillsets and mindsets required of lawyers to thrive, and highlighted the duty of practice supervision and management that partners had over their human staff lawyers using AI and the growing number of AI agents. For more details, click here to view Brian's LinkedIn post.

For the coming Hong Kong Legal Week 2025, Brian will also speak at the Hong Kong LawTech Fest on 5 December 2025 for the topic "Lawyers & AI - the evolving roles and skillsets for success". Interested parties can register to attend for free here: https://www.legalweek.hk/en/law-tech

Felix Chan et al on Bringing legal knowledge to the public by constructing a legal question bank using large-scale pre-trained language model (Artificial Intelligence and Law)

"Bringing legal knowledge to the public by constructing a legal question bank using large-scale pre-trained language model"
Mingruo Yuan, Ben Kao, Tien-Hsuan Wu, Michael Cheung, Henry Chan, Anne Cheung, Felix Chan, Yongxi Chen
Artificial Intelligence and Law
Published online: July 2023

Abstract: Access to legal information is fundamental to access to justice. Yet accessibility refers not only to making legal documents available to the public, but also rendering legal information comprehensible to them. A vexing problem in bringing legal information to the public is how to turn formal legal documents such as legislation and judgments, which are often highly technical, to easily navigable and comprehensible knowledge to those without legal education. In this study, we formulate a three-step approach for bringing legal knowledge to laypersons, tackling the issues of navigability and comprehensibility. First, we translate selected sections of the law into snippets (called CLIC-pages), each being a small piece of article that focuses on explaining certain technical legal concept in layperson’s terms. Second, we construct a Legal Question Bank, which is a collection of legal questions whose answers can be found in the CLIC-pages. Third, we design an interactive CLIC Recommender. Given a user’s verbal description of a legal situation that requires a legal solution, CRec interprets the user’s input and shortlists questions from the question bank that are most likely relevant to the given legal situation and recommends their corresponding CLIC pages where relevant legal knowledge can be found. In this paper we focus on the technical aspects of creating an LQB. We show how large-scale pre-trained language models, such as GPT-3, can be used to generate legal questions. We compare machine-generated questions against human-composed questions and find that MGQs are more scalable, cost-effective, and more diversified, while HCQs are more precise. We also show a prototype of CRec and illustrate through an example how our 3-step approach effectively brings relevant legal knowledge to the public.

Yang Lin and Taorui Guan on From safe harbours to AI harbours: reimagining DMCA immunity for the generative AI era (JIPLP)

"From safe harbours to AI harbours: reimagining DMCA immunity for the generative AI era"
Yang Lin (PhD 2022), Taorui Guan
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice
Published online: August 2025

Abstract: Generative artificial intelligence (AI) overturns the passive-intermediary assumptions that underlie the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbour. Modern systems ingest vast, often unlicensed datasets and emit on-the-fly outputs through a supply chain that spans data suppliers, model developers and deployers—raising parallel concerns in the EU, UK, Hong Kong and other jurisdictions.

Building on DMCA section 512, this article sketches an ‘AI harbour’ that ties immunity to role-specific duties: provenance disclosure and transparency for data suppliers; dataset curation, memorization-mitigation and watermarking for developers and dynamic filtering, complaint handling and repeat-infringer policies for deployers. A new statutory section—administered by an ‘AI Division’ within the Copyright Office—would certify actors, audit compliance and endorse technical standards developed through industry co-regulation.

The proposal preserves the DMCA’s cooperative bargain while supplying clear, technologically realistic compliance pathways. Because its tiered obligations, administrative oversight and adaptive self-regulation can be grafted onto existing regimes, the model travels well: the EU could integrate comparable safeguards alongside the Digital Services Act and AI Act; the UK’s post-Brexit reforms and Hong Kong’s technology-neutral Copyright Ordinance could embed similar structures. In this way, the AI harbour could offer a scalable blueprint for protecting creators without chilling innovation in the generative era.

Technology in the Courtroom (John Liu Profiled in HKU Bulletin)

"Technology in the Courtroom"
John Liu
HKU Bulletin
Published in May 2025

How do live broadcasts affect behaviour in the courtroom? What happens when judges use AI? And what can data analytics tell us about the factors that favour litigants in court? Professor John Liu has been investigating.

Live broadcasts of court proceedings have become more common around the world, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. In China, they are also part of an effort to encourage judicial transparency.

But sentiment about such broadcasts is divided. Some fear that judges and lawyers play to the cameras and that decisions will be badly affected. Others fear that all parties involved will be very nervous with livestreaming. In the US, David Souter, former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, once famously said “the day you see a camera come into our courtroom, it’s going to roll over my dead body.”

Professor John Liu in the Faculty of Law, however, has been sceptical about such risks, which he calls ‘folklore’. Recently, he decided to test the matter in a randomised control trial involving 85 cases in China, including civil, criminal and administrative (suing the government) cases. Some cases were assigned to be broadcast live and all participants in the trials were told of this; the others were not broadcast. The language and behaviours of everyone involved were analysed using a combination of AI audio recognition tools and manual review.

“What we found out is that some of the folklore is just not true. Judges and lawyers do not play to the cameras or change their behaviour. These repeat players are not influenced or affected in a bad way by live streaming,” he said.

“On the other hand, the parties – the litigants – are somewhat influenced. They appear to be nervous, and they speak at a slow speed and convey less information in trials that are broadcast live.”

Detecting trends

While this may affect litigants’ perceptions of the judicial process – a matter that still needs to be studied more closely – Professor Liu said it demonstrates that judges may be too conservative about the risks of a tool that enhances transparency in the courtroom......

Click here to read the full text.

New edited Chinese book by Say Goo and Shen Wei on FinTech and Legal Evolution: Credit, Currency, and AI (Shanghai Jiao Tong University)

金融科技與法律變革-信用 貨幣和人工智能 (FinTech and Legal Evolution: Credit, Currency, and AI)
主編(Edited by): 沈偉 (Shen Wei), 吳世學 (Say Goo)
上海交通大學 (Shanghai Jiao Tong University)
出版日期 (Publication date)：March 2025

內容簡介(Description): 以數字為基礎的新技術革命和數字經濟正在改變我們的生活。人工智能、量子計算等高科技正在深度嵌入社會生活，從金融市場到海上船舶，從司法實踐到智慧城市 建設速度之快、規模之廣和介入之深都令人有日新月異、歎為觀止之感。技術與金融相互結合的金融科技改變了貨幣、商業銀行、保險服務、信用體系、證券交易等許多傳統領域的法律面向，對監管提出了更新的要求。本書從監管視角探討金融科技、技術 治理和科技法治的新問題、新視角和新挑戰，揭示技術浪潮對國家治理和法律制度的深刻影響。

Wei Wang et al on Artificial Intelligence ‘Law(s)’ in China (AIRe)

"Artificial Intelligence ‘Law(s)’ in China"
Wayne Wei Wang (PhD), Lingfeng Zhu, Xiang Wang, Xingsi Di, Yue Zhu
Journal of AI Law and Regulation, Volume 2 (2025), Issue 1, pp. 29 - 36
Published online: Q1 2025

Abstract: In a sequel of two articles, we comprehensively examine China’s evolving AI regulation, focusing on the interplay between fragmented laws, technical standards, and sectoral governance frameworks. This reflects the tension between central regulatory control and sector-specific governance in aligning rapid technological advancement with coherent legislative oversight. The two papers, read together, argue that a phased legislative strategy emphasizing flexibility, cross-sectoral consistency, and proactive engagement with emerging technologies is essential for China to sustain global competitiveness while ensuring ethical and safe AI development. By integrating local piloting, sectoral adaptation, and incremental national standardisation, it advocates for balancing regulatory oversight with technological innovation. Ultimately, the findings reflect China’s efforts to craft a resilient legal framework that mitigates AI risks while fostering sustained and responsible innovation and iterating its industrial policies. The first part cover fragmented laws and technical standards, and the second part will address sectoral governance, emerging proposals, and analysis.

Haochen Sun on The Law and Ethics of AI Creativity (St. John’s Law Review)

"The Law and Ethics of AI Creativity"
Haochen Sun
St. John's Law Review
Published online: January 2025

Abstract: This Article comprises three parts. In Part I, after demonstrating that creativity is a social process, I explore the ethical principles of originality, attribution, and authenticity of creative activities. In Part II, I scrutinize the opacity of AI systems in the collection, utilization, and generation of works, highlighting the need for a greater focus on the legal and social problems arising from these black box processes. Lastly, in Part III, I explore why the ethical principles of originality, attribution, and authenticity should govern AI creativity, and how they would lead to the adoption by AI companies of filtering and watermarking responsibilities.

Scott Veitch on The Perfect Storm: Artificial Intelligence, Financialisation, and Venture Legalism (Law and Critique)

"The Perfect Storm: Artificial Intelligence, Financialisation, and Venture Legalism"
Scott Veitch
Law and Critique
Published online: November 2024

Abstract: This article analyses the limits of legal norms and institutions in holding to account the emerging power of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning. It demonstrates how a symbiosis of capitalism and new forms of digital power is mutating to produce novel and dangerous styles of organised irresponsibility that go beyond the reach of conventional legal mechanisms. It draws on the work of Pashukanis, Baudrillard, and Alain Supiot to show how this transformation is taking place. Referring to the role of AI in the spread of Financial Technologies, it introduces a new term – ‘venture legalism’ – to describe how unprecedented risks are currently being created. It concludes by observing how ethical and democratic registers are equally implausible modes of accountability.

Welcome the new Global Academic Fellow Dr Pangyue Cheng!

Welcome to Dr Pangyue Cheng who joined the Faculty of Law as a Global Academic Fellow. Dr. Pangyue Cheng is a legal scholar focusing on corporate law, financial regulation, and AI governance. Her research interests encompass institutional stewardship, corporate governance, sustainability, and AI regulation. Pangyue’s work explores the legal challenges companies face in a rapidly changing global environment, particularly how shifts in investor roles, technological advancements, and increasing sustainability demands shape corporate governance and regulatory practices. Her research has been published in international law reviews and peer-reviewed journals such as the Columbia Business Law Review and the European Business Law Review.

Currently, Pangyue’s research focuses on the intersection of corporate governance, sustainability, and technological innovation. She examines how institutional investors foster corporate responsibility and long-term value creation through ESG integration. Additionally, her research on AI governance addresses the opportunities and legal challenges that emerging technologies pose to corporate systems and governance frameworks.

Pangyue holds a Bachelor of Laws from Beijing Normal University, an LLM in Corporate and Financial Services Law, and a PhD from the National University of Singapore, where she researched institutional stewardship in Chinese listed companies. Her work on ESG integration and corporate sustainability was fully funded by the MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies at Yale University. She has been invited to share her research at esteemed institutions, including Yale University, Harvard University, the University of Michigan, the Edinburgh Centre for Commercial Law, the Society of Legal Scholars, and the American Society of Comparative Law.

Pangyue currently teaches China Company Law and Securities Regulation at the HKU Faculty of Law. She was a Fox International Fellow at Yale University and worked as a researcher on several projects at the National University of Singapore Law School. Before entering academia, she practiced law in mainland China and served as legal counsel for a listed AI company.

HKU Law Welcomes Prof. Julian Nowag

Welcome to Prof. Julian Nowag, who joins the Faculty of Law as an Associate Professor.

Julian is an Associate Professor at HKU and Lund University, Sweden, specializing in competition law. He is a leading scholar in sustainability and is currently working on the intersection between AI and competition. His recent work with Thomas K Cheng on  Algorithmic Predation and Exclusion won a Concurrence Award in 2023. Julian is also an Associate at the Oxford Centre for Competition Law and Policy and serves as a managing editor of The Journal for Antitrust Enforcement (OUP). He has authored and edited several books, including Environmental Integration in Competition and Free-Movement Laws  (OUP 2016), Intersections Between Corporate and Antitrust Law (eds. with Marco Corradi) (CUP 2024), Research Handbook on Sustainability and Competition Law  (ed) (Edward Elgar 2024), and Global Antitrust and Sustainability: law, economics, enforcement (OUP forthcoming 2024/25). 

Julian earned his Master’s degree (MSt) and doctorate (DPhil) from the University of Oxford. He also completed an LLM in European Legal Studies at Durham University and undergraduate law studies in Germany and Austria. At Lund University, he was the director of the master’s programme in European Business Law and taught courses on competition and various areas of EU law. Julian also taught EU law and competition law at Oxford and gave lectures and seminars on EU law, comparative law, and competition law in various European, Asian, and Latin American universities and institutions.

Julian is a qualified lawyer in Germany, with professional training that focused on competition law. He completed placements at the German Competition Authority’s international co-operation unit, the European Commission (DG Comp, cartels unit), and Allen & Overy’s German Antitrust unit in Hamburg. 

Julian can be found on LinkedIn, SSRN, and Twitter/X.

Gary Meggitt on Marine insurance fraud and emerging technology (New book chapter)

"Marine insurance fraud and emerging technology"
Gary Meggitt
in Research Handbook on Marine Insurance Law, edited by Özlem Gürses (Edward Elgar Publishing, March 2024), Chapter 14, pp. 275 - 305
Published online: March 2024

Abstract: Marine insurance fraud is probably as old as marine insurance itself. Year after year, the courts hand out judgments- for or against insurers- following lengthy, complex and costly litigation. The losses to innocent shipping companies, cargo owners, agents, brokers, insurers and others, however, go on. Might technology succeed in defeating- or at least deterring- fraud where the ‘law’ has failed? This chapter looks at the use of emerging technology, including smart contracts and artificial intelligence (AI), by insurers and the marine transport industry to combat those who perpetrate marine insurance fraud. It considers how such technology may have resolved some of the more controversial fraud litigation of recent years and how the relationship between this technology and the law may develop in the future.

Ryan Whalen awarded the 2024 Microsoft Research AI & Society Fellow (Copyright Protection for User Data in the Era of LLMs)

Congratulations to Ryan Whalen, who awarded the 2024 Microsoft Research AI & Society Fellow.

Background on the prize: The Microsoft Research AI & Society Fellows program supports interdisciplinary AI research in the context of societal impact. The program offers opportunities for fellows from fields beyond core computer sciences to join and support interdisciplinary research conversations with Microsoft Researchers. By facilitating these new collaborations, Microsoft aims to scale the impact of collective research efforts at the intersection of AI & Society. For more information on the award, click here.

Ziyue Zhou and Kwan Yuen Iu on Catalyst for Common Law Evolution: Experiment with ChatGPT and a Hypothetical Common Law Jurisdiction (Asian Journal of Law and Economics)

"Catalyst for Common Law Evolution: Experiment with ChatGPT and a Hypothetical Common Law Jurisdiction"
Kwan Yuen Iu and Ziyue Zhou (PhD candidate)
Asian Journal of Law and Economics
Published Online: 5 January 2024

Abstract: This paper aims to carry out empirical analysis of the viability of large language models (LLMs), specifically ChatGPT, in simulating the common law system and facilitating its evolutionary processes. Drawing on the Theory of Rules Evolution, it is understood that common law generates efficient rules by natural selection through constant litigation. Nonetheless, this evolutionary mechanism faces several hindrances. The process of change is typically slow and incremental. Courts often have to wait for a case that’s deemed ‘appropriate’ before they can change the law, leading to extended delays. Additionally, courts frequently struggle to make efficient decisions due to limited information. Other factors that decelerate the creation of efficient rules include judicial bias, unequal distribution of resources among litigating parties, and the diminishing presence of a competitive legal order. This study first assesses ChatGPT’s capability to embrace the essence of the common law system, namely the doctrine of stare decisis. We then assess its potential to overcome the hindrances in common law development and promote efficient rules. Through a series of meticulously designed hypothetical cases set in a virtual jurisdiction called the “Matrix Kingdom,” we observed that ChatGPT mimic the functions of a common law court by citing, following, and distinguishing its own precedents, but it accomplishes this with significantly fewer resources and in less time. This implies that humans can introduce hypothetical legal situations, enabling LLMs to replicate the natural selection process observed in the common law system but with a significantly accelerated pace. Given that LLMs are trained with diverse information sources, not just the factual contexts of cases, they could potentially lower the informational constraints in decision-making. As such, LLMs might significantly contribute to the evolutionary processes of common law development. However, it is important to remain cautious of certain limitations, such as the potential for AI Hallucination and inherent biases in LLMs, which require careful consideration and management.

Douglas Arner and team on Regulating Artificial Intelligence in Finance and other Regulated Industries (new book chapter)

"Regulating artificial intelligence in finance and other regulated industries"

Douglas W. Arner, Ross P. Buckley, Dirk A. Zetzsche, Brian W. Tang & Lucien J. van Romburg

in Artificial Intelligence in Finance

Edited by Nydia Remolina & Aurelio Gurrea-Martinez (Edward Elgar Publishing, 14 Apr 2023)

Chapter 12

Abstract: This chapter develops a regulatory framework for understanding and addressing the increasing role of AI in finance, and focuses on human responsibility, the ‘human-in-the-loop’, as central to tackling AI ‘black box’ issues ie the risk that AI results in processes and operations unknown to and uncontrolled by human beings, producing undesirable results for which only the AI is responsible. Part II highlights the risks created by the increased reliance on AI in finance. Part III summarises the regulatory challenges concerning financial services AI and the tools available to address them and highlights the necessity to address the ‘black box’ problem. Part IV presents our solution to the latter problem. Part V concludes suggesting that our framework offers the potential to address ‘black box’ issues in the context of AI in finance but also in any regulated industry.

Benjamin Chen et al on Detecting the Influence of the Chinese Guiding Cases (Artificial Intelligence and Law)

"Detecting the influence of the Chinese guiding cases: a text reuse approach"

Benjamin M. Chen, Zhiyu Li, David Cai & Elliott Ash

Artificial Intelligence and Law

Published: 06 May 2023

Abstract: Socialist courts are supposed to apply the law, not make it, and socialist legality denies judicial decisions any precedential status. In 2011, the Chinese Supreme People’s Court designated selected decisions as Guiding Cases to be referred to by all judges when adjudicating similar disputes. One decade on, the paucity of citations to Guiding Cases has been taken as demonstrating the incongruity of case-based adjudication and the socialist legal tradition. Citations are, however, an imperfect measure of influence. Reproduction of language uniquely traceable to Guiding Cases can also be evidence of their impact on judicial decision-making. We employ a local alignment tool to detect unattributed text reuse of Guiding Cases in local court decisions. Our findings suggest that Guiding Cases are more consequential than commonly assumed, thereby complicating prevailing narratives about the antagonism of socialist legality to case law.