Good morning good afternoon or good evening wherever you may be in the world. My name is David Horrigan and this is the law dot mit.edu podcast with Daza Greenwood and me. The law dot mit.edu is a podcast that explores the rapidly changing worlds of law and technology as our lives become increasingly more digitized. It's important, more important than ever to start thinking about reimagining and reengineering 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 dot mit.edu is in fact the executive director. Our good friend, Daza Greenwood. Daza, what's up for today and what's our topic. Oh, thank you so much, David. And, you know, the topic today is one near and dear to my heart and actually that is captured the focus of the entire law dot mit.edu research team and also our publication MIT computational law report. And 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 consummate expert with us today on this subject would be a drastic understatement. Our guest today is Olga Mack, and many of you in the world of legal technology know Olga. Olga V. Mack is a vice president at Lexis Nexus where she serves as vice president and CEO of council link CLM, formerly known as parley pro Olga was the CEO of parley pro a contract life cycle management platform which was acquired by Lexis Nexus in 2022. And here's where we get into a true Renaissance legal technologist. In addition to her work, bringing technology to legal teams Olga's an accomplished attorney, having served as commissioner on the California Commission Commission and as the general counsel of the SAS firm clear side, as well as the general counsel of the Pacific Art League, counsel at visa, and counsel at Zeus, and we'll get more into that later on the broadcast because we'll find some interesting connections to the world of legal technology. Earlier in a career she worked in big law at Wilson San Sine. And if that weren't enough. She's a former assistant district attorney in San Francisco Olga Mack. Welcome to the law dot MIT dot edu podcast. Well hello everyone David good to see you, Daza. I love the jacket. Amazing you didn't have to dress for me but look amazing. I'm really excited about this conversation. And we are to and we're just disappointed that we cannot share 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 is beautiful. It's a shade of pink for the listeners and Daza in the jacket shade of pink is a beautiful site. No doubt about that. Alright, we're going to start off today's broadcast with a little bit of a quiz. And I'm going to ask Olga and Daza, if they have heard or have any familiarity with this with some of these cases. We have a Shaboon v Egypt air a 2013 decision out of the first first appellate district in Illinois. We've got Peterson v Iran air from the district of the District of Columbia a federal decision from 2012. And as the Delta Airlines, we're getting a theme here of something in the air. It's a Texas appellate decision from 2019, a state of dirt and v KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, a Georgia State Court case from 2017, or perhaps early the American Airlines from the appellate division in New Jersey 2003. I'm wondering about all 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. Perhaps. Yeah, it's exactly like these are the cases that chachi PT shovel to the, that lawyer that got in trouble in New York right. And as I get this one you are correct sir these are the fake citations from Mada the avianca ink. And we're going to 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. Mr Mada was traveling on an avianca air flight from El Salvador to JFK. And, you know, I'm six foot for 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 court is thinking something seems odd here. And specifically it was one of the 11th circuit citations that tripped them up. And so the court actually called down to the 11th circuit was like, Hey, have you ever heard of this case? And specifically it was one of the 11th circuit citations that tripped them up. And so the court actually called down to the 11th circuit was like, Hey, have you ever heard of this case, and they're like, No. Well, you know where this goes. One of the attorneys that actually just asked chat GPT for some legal citations and chat GPT spat them all out and they were all fake. They were sanctions involved in this case. 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 in New York and federal court. So, his legal colleague was the one who was doing the research with our good robot friend chat GPT. Never bothered to check I'm thinking well if it's chat GPT it must be correct. So Olga Mack we've got issues of generative AI we've got issues of the supervision of attorneys. We think about our model rules of professional conduct rule 5.1 on the responsibilities of a partner and supervisory lawyer rule 5.2 responsibilities of a subordinate lawyer, but so we've got as I so often don't don't forget rule 11. Oh, yes does a, I would be negligent on that one so we've got, we've got all these issues, plus generative AI thrown on top. What's your first takeaway Olga. Wow. There's a lot of takes away. As we know, hallucinations in the real problem with generative AI, or this hallucinations generally this technology is designed to please us. And sometimes what pleases us is doesn't exist in the world, you know, I've ever been married had relationship with anyone, you know, a good, well intended compliment that may not necessarily correspond to reality improves marriage. But we have a good relationship for that matter. And, and chat GPT pleases us 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 doesn't exist. And that's inconvenient. 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 on our parades when we hear what we want to hear, and jokes aside, I mean, listen, anytime you use, you do anything as a lawyer, it's your job to make sure that this 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 behavior, how you are the holder of your license, that means you need to be comfortable in whatever representations are made, whether they're factual, or actual law representation in this case, clearly, if all this case law doesn't exist, it only exists because it pleases you that's while satisfying at some level, not satisfying to the court. And so, yeah, so many failures of competence, supervision, all kinds of things. And that just means really, in the end of the day, low technology companies, which leads to, you know, no practice essentially, and inappropriate use of your license and putting your economic ability to earn living by practicing law. A jeopardy. Sure. Okay. You know legal tech as well as anyone you were a 2020 fast case 50 award winner. 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 know, the general counsel for smaller organizations, you've also practiced in big law. What do you think 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, gen, generative AI can 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 restart. Just kind of like what you have with the 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 and just, 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 be a representative player or smaller player or newcomer. I sit at the table, you know, I shot it in the game.  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 operator, a person or or a collection of people are more likely to do good with a sharp tool. If they are trained operators who have an analytical framework of getting from point A to point B, have a definition of success, and who possibly have done it before. 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 specific with the RNA AI could solve a lot of things, but could also be that that knife that kills. Great, great analogy as unfortunate as the end result may be. Let's take it a step further and does it be great to get you in on this as well. A lot has been said about the invasion of the robots we've talked about the level of the playing field, but, and we talked about, maybe it can level the playing field, but is there really the concern that is going to take people's jobs we have the strike right now going on with the writers and the actors in Hollywood. We have a lot of people in the legal community concerned about boys is going to take all our jobs. Do you think 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. Well, I did want to pop in on that and also to maybe deepen the question a little bit for for Olga, but to me just the framing around the the matter case. It's so intriguing because and the reason I mentioned rule 11 is the fundamental obligation is to practice law competently which means you know checking sites, ensuring that the legal arguments are in the best interests of your client, etc, etc. So rule 11 codifies that obligation for filings or representations to a court, you know that among other things that you you've done your job that some due diligence, you have an evidentiary basis for the assertions that you're making in the first instance. But I think this is so fascinating precisely because 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 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. And it's so interesting because of the duty of supervision, I feel like plays out in multiple ways here in terms of like the lawyer job preservation, like active 2024 and beyond. It seems like it's not merely 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 valence with respect to supervising the tool and the process itself so I, I guess I'd love to talk more about that but all of this whoever is doing the due diligence in the law practice, whoever is doing the supervision.  And so I do feel like we're not replacing humans where we're super charging humans with the technology, and we're further honing and applying the 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 this human role of supervision and how that plays out in the, in all the various ways that this technology 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 thinking about it. A couple things. It's, it's not unique to lawyers. First of all, other professions have it either codified or as a matter of practice. Observation number one, observation number two, it is also not unique to United States lawyers. It pretty much one way or another exist in most democracies and most places where you see lawyers. So it's a pretty universal beauty really one way or another. So what I'm going to show you through what I find is that what it means is actually a point in time question. It started sort of with a sort of traditional apprenticeship model which would you use to exist in every part of human society from artists to lawyers to publishers to whatever. It sort of started today in includes things like ensuring work quality, promoting ethical conduct, providing training, managing cases, maintaining client community that includes all kinds of stuff. But it changed over time it changed over time from something you watch me do it and then you can do the same. Another thing more like let me show you best practices here is 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 trained to be a lawyer because we now have law schools really, and we have bar exam but kind of like takes care of a lot of this early apprenticeship stuff. Now it's 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 just graduated from law school, but most of me who members, 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 and all kinds of stuff. And I think where this is all going is that supervising technology to and we've been basically certifying with the discovery 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 and I'm pretty sure that is not a stretch 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 going to stop here because I can talk about it all day, but in a nutshell that those are the three trends that I see. That's great. 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. If you've heard about that and this is not some inebriated guy in a Cessna. These are long term United States military officers testifying that. Yeah, you know there was biological material they brought them in so we may have bigger things to worry about than the generative AI robots but it does. It was great that you brought up rule 11. Because the court of course sites rule 11 in moda via Bianca and specifically rule 11 C one, providing that absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a law for a violation committed by its associates or authorities.  So when you're thinking about the rules and thinking about this situation. Do the lawyers think about what they could do with generative AI. I have to admit, if I were the supervisory attorney in this case, even though the world changed a lot on November 30th the last year when generative AI really hit the, hit the whole nation, the world, etc. I'm not able 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 how does AI change the rules of the ballgame here. Do we need to now add it into the federal rules of civil procedure that there are rules on using chat GPT for surveillance. 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. The technology it's been in SAS data AI ML blockchain crypto numerous under disruptive technology before they were cool and earn their buzz.  But really laws regulate behaviors. Sometimes when it's hard to regulate behavior, they, they kind of focus on impact and outcomes. That's sort of our standard way to write laws, I kind of think we should speak to that. I think it works general speaking. I think the rule of supervision is there. It is clear enough. It has extended over time, as I just talked about. I don't think it's a massive stretch to extend it to supervision of machines, whatever shape form they come into our lives. What's that is not to say that we're all great. So 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 depth about it. The rule is pretty simple. And that applies to human. I guarantee you, if you serve a 2100, 2000 lawyers or professionals, want to become professionals. There will have different approaches to supervision, different definitions of success, and different ways they deal with shortcomings of their individual supervising models. We do not that definition, 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. As we were going down in the elevator, this gentleman was a lawyer. From a 30 years forward to the first. We had a brief exchange where he said, Oh, I realize I need to be a 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 it sounds solid. And in his mind, he checked the box of mentoring. 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. And generally, well that the excitement about this senior lawyer mentoring me would extend to something more exciting like how I practice law. But in his mind, this was very practical and useful and he meant well. 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. I think it's an extreme example, right. But if you know people do not have a shared definition of success of supervision, they have no analytical framework or 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 what's people that's before we get to machines. If 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 I do a lot of mentoring as part of the role at MIT with younger students. And it's so important to tune the mentoring to the mentee to the person you're talking to, and to really understand them. I'm sorry that happened to you. It reminds me a little bit of when I was a very young lawyer. I got kind of thrown the deep end very quickly in a state government and with respect to technology and end up testifying the first time I testified in Congress. I was young, like in my twenties and I had my suit I kind of flew down to DC.  I couldn't wear the jacket. I did have an extra shirt, which I put on and then the staff wouldn't allow me to get onto the Senate committee room, not wearing a jacket I had a tie, but they're like you can't do it I think it's relaxed. It was not finding a jacket for me that was like I don't know five sizes too small look like one of those monkeys with the crane or something was horrible but you know, in my case as someone who apparently was a slot 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 that we have so far to go with suit with what does it mean to mentor where's supervision mean. How can 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. That's that's with humans.  One of the biggest challenges, how can I be well that's easily sold. And I do think the gentleman meant well it would be helpful in some circumstances. And, but with machine, you really need to have an approach you need to have a definition of success and you need to be able to deal with said that. And today, we basically telling lawyers you have, you have a rule, you have a duty. Do it. Do a good job. If you fail. You may be disbarred 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 brings us to what you said in the end of your statement is what's missing is how we have the rules the rules are pretty well adapted 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 remiss if I didn't mention that Olga is also an esteemed member of the law dot MIT edu task force on the use of generative AI for law practice. Which is recently published principles and guidelines to hope we hope help to begin to put meat in the bones for how to apply our existing rules of professional responsibility to the use of generative AI and one of those rules is I think the principle seven is supervision. And but we're just scratching the, the tip of the iceberg here 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 there's a big open space there and half of using generative AI is getting the prompt right. The other half or maybe 60 7090% is is evaluating properly the outputs before working it in, and that that really is the essence of the supervision isn't it. That rule needs to be operational that's that's business fee. 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. And 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 white 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.  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 trade organizations like a be able to be helpful, or maybe regulatory organizations could be helpful, or professionals getting together could be helpful, and sort of development of examples scenarios, best practices checklist checklist that key. Those things need to be happening with supervision for humans or machines. There's a game 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 what dear and doing the jury selection. We got back, and we're in the room conferring one of the perspective jurors had worked with opposing counsel. 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.  That's not what he said. He said, if she worked with them. She's got to hate him. They'll strike him. We're not good they'll strike or we're not going to waste a strike. Sure enough, that's exactly what they did. And so I was the young kid who didn't know any of that stuff, but it equates to what we're talking about in 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 work for major American law firms, but in your work as a general counsel here in the United States. You've also had big international experience some of these are international companies doing international business. And in fact, you emigrated 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 differs in different parts of the world. So I've done a lot of research and I definitely as somebody who was born elsewhere in English is my second language and I travel quite a lot, and have been in companies with massive footprints of United States. I have a sort of my sort of to this rule of law concept they have a much worldly presence. And what you find is that the duty of supervision is actually pretty universal definitely across democracies. And where you see high concentration of lawyers, which is like Asia, EU, Brazil, places like that. You definitely have some sort of codified way of duty of supervision. And they all emphasize competence as a critical aspect of supervision. They emphasize supervisory responsibility such as work quality, ethical conduct, oversize all of that is sort of universal recognize client service and acting in clients best interest those are really common themes. There is sort of a very, very degree of specificity and details, and they're definitely enough differences but but I would say to me overwhelmingly those things are have a lot in common. Some of the countries include sort of the themes around business management others don't. And some have sort of more specific guidelines and some have some more regional EU, if you practice it if you know, you as a member country in the United States in the in the European Union, you may belong to the equivalent of the bar there and maybe a new lawyer as well. So you may have overlapping duties of supervision. So I would say it's close enough and most of your diction there are differences and in specialist specificity, but it is definitely there it is common theme and I would go as far as saying that they more or less evolve over time and lock steps, sort of expectations of broadening that duty to include vendors to include ethics to include technology, all of that I think is very much 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 known you professionally for many years, but 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 Zeus. 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. There are 25 different languages. 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. It's a joke that I should have retired after working at Zeus, because I think I picked 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 where I was an associate general counsel there that I'm a lawyer for online dating company. Most people in the room, I would, I would say all but that's probably an overstatement would find me fascinating and anxious. I would come to me and ask me about advice and, and what it's like, and things I'm willing to share and things I'm not. I was like, literally the most interesting person in the room, I can tell you that joining a SaaS company was, was a massive downgrade. And a legal tag did not improve my odds. And, and so it was a really, really fascinating 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, successful adventure or the one that was a lesson, or the one that allowed us to grow whatever that thing was, we all felt it deeply and strongly and so planning a lawyer who helps people fall in love is a deeply fascinating thing. 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 it's a we're talking about early days of internet. And the two founders and the staff they hired were innovators, truly innovators and yes, love, but let's break down love into into something more scientific and make it completely uninteresting. Let's talk about data, because online dating companies is a consumer facing business and online dating company upgrades 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, marketing, because that's how you acquire users and to 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's data. And to me that business you take all the sort of jokes aside was very interesting, because I see any online dating company or including Zeus as essentially a data company we had a lot of data scientists on the team I was advising various uses of data. At the time where 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. When you have avoid in laws and practice and best practices, 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 risk professional any kind is really to have sophisticated conversations about that. Because what you know for sure is that the law 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 judge inside 2020. And so you can take an optimistic view and say, in the absence of anything, let's, let's do the minimal let's do the floor, because there is a void, or you can be an enlightened leader, you really are faced with that choice. You can, you can talk about the ceiling. 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. With that look good on internet or newspaper, all of those conversation and really kind of figure out what the delta is, and whether how close to the ceiling or for what is the consciousness of your organization. And I really enjoyed that job, 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 your close like your parents. 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. All kinds of stuff that is very just, just private. And so, it was really interesting for me as I consider myself a privacy professional. To me that's being part of technology lawyer, and thinking through the issues of doing the right thing through the ethics of it was very interesting and we are facing exactly the same challenges today with AI. While would you have enough was on the books. Things like ethical considerations thinking about an impact of what you're developing in AI those are not codified just yet. 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 was company console. 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 technologies lawyers business professionals in the room for 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 well. And that's going to happen 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 Mack vice president and CEO of counseling CLM Renaissance lawyer, former law enforcement official former 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 concludes, I hope you'll come back and join us. And Daza, as usual, would you like to close this 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 you know it's, it's, this is what makes David and I and law. You want to do the podcast as kind of substantive. And that's a entertaining programming. And so 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 dot MIT dot edu


Mechanics member James Lick, you saw his bust when you walked in our building. He liked this industrial exhibition idea and offered the free use of a parcel of land that he owned on Montgomery Street between Post and Sutter, right over there across the street. Advertisements for the upcoming fair were distributed at post offices, labor exchanges, and in newspapers up and down the state advertising the upcoming fair and inviting manufacturers, inventors, farmers, miners, and artists to take part. There was to be no cost for exhibitors and prizes were to be awarded. This illustration is one of the first advertisements for the fair scheduled for September of 1857. This advertisement dated December 17th, 1856. It was most interestingly aimed at women. Metals of silver and bronze were designed to be awarded to the best in class, and by the summer of 1857 the Institute had erected this fair building. It was made of wood with a canvas roof and was decorated with the flags of many nations. It encompassed 18,000 square feet and was then the largest building in California. The interior was cross-shaped with four rooms that opened onto a central lobby. Beneath the dome was a bubbling fountain festooned with flowers, and above hanging from the rafters was a huge eagle with wings outstretched, a symbol of the state's potential. The opening ceremonies were on the evening of September 7th at Musical Hall on Montgomery Street. The president of the Institute, John Syme, gave a short speech, and then he turned the podium over to Henry F. Williams, a 26-year-old mild-mannered carpenter who, rather at the last minute, agreed to give the opening address because no one more famous could be produced. He astounded everyone by giving a rousing speech that outlined the state's achievements in industry, invention, and self-sufficiency, and the nobility of those who practice the mechanic arts. After the speeches came the music.  Music ever after would be a huge part of each fair, and during the later ones there would be a 50- person orchestra performing twice a day. This piece was performed and recorded for this talk by mechanics member Matt Lye. Symbols would crash, the pyrotechnics would explode, and the fair would be declared open. When one entered the pavilion on Montgomery Street, one walked past a display of billiard tables and cabinets filled with curiosities and samples of the state's minerals. To the right was a horticultural display, a fire engine, a mountain of sugar. Next one found fancy articles, needlework, fabrics, laces, and then the art from the Noll Brothers, William Jewett, and many others. The 57 fair was the first major exhibition of art in California, and with future fairs the art departments would grow tremendously. The fairs would be the main public exhibition of art until the founding of the De Young Museum after the 1894 Midwinter Fair. This familiar painting was on display by regular exhibitionist William Smith Jewett, and the Noll Brothers also exhibited a great deal of work. He's well done, don't you think? The first fair lasted for nearly four weeks and had about 10,000 visitors, which was roughly 25% of the adult San Francisco population at the time. There were 650 different exhibitors, and approximately 25% of them were women, which is interesting, as women were not yet 25 percent of the population. I also have identified three exhibitors so far who were African-American. Mr. Mifflin Gibbs and Mr. Peter Lester were proprietors of the Pioneer Boot and Shoe Emporium. They would exhibit at both the 57 and 58 fairs. Then they took themselves off to the Fraser River, up in British Columbia, where they treated people of color better. The third person for whom I don't have a photo was Mr. James Dyer, and he was a proprietor of the New England Soap Company. The participation of African-Americans I find fascinating at our fairs, because though California at that time, California entered the Union as a free state, African-Americans did not enjoy full citizenship. They couldn't vote, they couldn't give testimony in court. They could, however, display at our fairs.


Good morning and welcome to the weekly market update with me David Madden today's date is Monday the 18th of November 2019 and the time has just gone 1135 GMT and it's been a fairly quiet start to the European trading session We heard we heard over the weekend. There was trade talks between the US and China and apparently they were quote-unquote Constructive so could be there's a continued sense of optimism in relation to the US China trade talks Also out of China The Chinese central bank have lowered the repo rate by five basis points It was the first time in since 2015 that rate has been lowered and on its own It is much of a move, but this ties in with the wider The wider sentiment that globally center banks are loosening monetary policy Which is kind of a I know which is both kind of beneficial to the stock markets But also kind of paints a picture that the global economy is slowing down and very different Countries are using whatever tools that have at their disposal to assist the economy We've yet to hear President Trump's decision in relation to what's gonna happen with the Tariff potential tariffs on EU vehicle vehicles and in a way that's sort of acting as a cap to your connecting markets You know We've seen strong levels in the DAX and the cap recently But they can't in the last few weeks, but we can't really kind of drive ahead Just because no pun intended We can't really drive ahead just because some traders are very concerned that you know They want to sit in the fence until President Trump makes his decision because obviously you can take the high risk buying up lots of German or French stocks in manufacturing The car auto stocks on the outside of president Trump those decide to impose the Impose the the levies on EU vehicles But there is talk that he will whenever he does make a decision that decision will be to defer to to defer for another six months So these are the kind of the big issues that are going on in terms of the financial markets Also, the British Pound is doing quite well this morning. What we've seen is numerous in opinion polls put the Johnson's conservative party in the lead The Tory party I've already struck a deal with the EU the Tory party or pro-business. This is what was benefiting the British Pound but more recently Prime Minister Johnson has stated that every MP and every conservative MP fighting this next general election Has pledged to back the deal that he's already agreed with EU So traders are looking as a sign if the Tories do win this election and they do get a majority This could be kind of like the final leg of the Brexit saga whereby it looked to kind of you know They would all hopefully if the if the Tory party get a majority who then looked like Essentially kind of look like it would look like we're point to that Those MPs the Tory MPs were then back. Mr. Johnson's the deal that he struck with with the Brussels So hence why we're seeing strength in the British Pound I thought I'd do now is take a look at the week ahead article and then I'll also look through some of the major markets So if we can article can be found on a website go to cmcbrackets.com Under insights nudes and analysis and you find this article. So look me head to tomorrow. Follow your figures from easyjet Tomorrow we have third quarter figures from Home Depot This week on Wednesday and Wednesday and Friday We have inflation numbers from Canada as well as well as retail sales figures from Canada on Wednesday We have the minutes from the latest meeting of the Federal Reserve on Wednesday We also have third quarter figures from Target on Thursday We have third quarter numbers from William Hill here in the UK Royal Mail with all on Thursday. We'll also deliver their first half numbers We have the minute from the ECB and the ECB Policy meeting on Thursday and on Thursday. We have third quarter figures out from the gap and on Friday We have flash PMI reports out of Germany and France Starting off now with the FTSE 100 So the FTSE broad he's speaking it you know since early October so for about six weeks broad you've been pushing higher Obviously be edging a bit lower ever so recently But we've managed to kind of hang in around this red line here The tour to moving average and that comes to play at seven top just north of seven thousand three hundred We're sure our north of that level as it stands if you could hold above the tour to moving average It's likely that the kind of recent trend of assay six seven weeks is going to continue should that be the case We could look at retesting seven thousand four hundred Up toward this area here the early November highs in a seven thousand four hundred and thirty odd There there abouts and if you go beyond that we could then be looking at potentially targeting this area here in around seven thousand four hundred and seventy To keep an eye on the zone Should the wider upper trend continue and if you do you manage to have a fairly decent move to the downside And if the low is going to take out the lows of last week and Friday This area here we could then be heading back down toward the psychology important seven thousand metric And we could see here 7200 area here We can see here that that that seven thousand two hundred acted as a support so better consolidation In October so the metric has been an area to have been important in the past it makes it it'll be more likely so in the future Take a look now. What's going on over in Germany on the Dax So only last week we saw the Dax hit a level last seen Since early 2018 to give indication of how strong the Dax is. It was a January 2018 we're at level that so give indication of how bullish the market is But if you look at the price action and then ask week or two very much kind of range about as we're gonna get a push to me Any higher pass really move the whole lot of the lower like I said that the lack of clarity in relation to you Auto tariffs is an issue for the Dax I always see here on the Mac the indicator about the histogram positive momentum completely faded away I will actually now see Russia knowing seeing an increase in negative momentum So be mindful that it could this it could be a sign that we could be looking at the Bulls who weren't in control for a number of weeks Appeared to be kind of running out of steam So we could look for a bit of a pullback of the market potentially back toward this area here in around 12,000 just well south of 13,000 12,000 980 or perhaps even over this area here in around 12,800 But keep mind the wide rougher trend is still very much in play So if the market does matter to continue on and the recent trend and take up recent take up the recent highs That would suggest that we're in for a further Upper move I should that be the case you can really get right this area here the highs of late January 2018 And that's in around the 13,600 mark We'll take a look what's going on over in the US the US markets are flying it You know regularly seeing record highs across the major US indices and it would appear that Dow Jones is gonna post another all-time high So the sentiment is very much to the upside the markets are pushing higher. They're pointing at all-time highs It is an increase in positive momentum markets are looking quite strong So we could be looking at Eric, you know in the near term Respecting the markets open in around 20,000 is 60 odd We could be looking at targeting 28,000 100 28,200 these sorts of levels If you do have a pullback in the market Or we could see if you could see the market finding support from in around this area here in around 12,500 12,400 this zone here As potential areas of support and even if you'd have a size of break below that support Can we found this blue line here the 50 moving average and that comes to play in around 12? Sorry in around 27,057 I take a look check off the S&P 500 fairly similar situation of the S&P 100 We're posted all-time highs on Friday. We're expecting yet another all-time iso sentiment is very clearly strong We're seeing an increase in positive momentum So so the upward move in the underlying market has been confirmed by a steady increase in the Back to indicators things are looking quite well on that front. So we're expecting the S&P 500 to open around 3,125 so we could be looking at targeting 3,130 40 so once a fourth in the near term A move lower might find support from this zone here in around 3,066 and if you if you go below that this area here in around 3,025 might act as support and even if you move below that this blue line here the 50 moving average which comes to play at 3,009 that might act as support should we see a fairly sizable pullback in the S&P 500 Take a look at the some currencies starting off with a euro versus US dollar So the wider trend is very much to the downside So we can't really ignore that but recently in the last few weeks We have seen broadly speaking a push to the upside in in the euro versus the US dollar And we could see here that the metric is back above It brief you try to blow 110 and it's been pushing higher since a negative momentum is declining And we're back our making gains beyond the 50 moving average and if you can hold above 50 moving average a blue line there In at one spot 10 41 if you can hold above that area We can then be looking at head back towards kind of 111 area and then beyond that You can look at retest in this zone here in around one spot 1179 Which kind of is broadly speaking to get a highs that we saw in October But also coincides with the eternity moving average. There's this red line here If you manage you can drop turn over on itself yet again And we take off the recent lows here in around one spot 989 drop below that could take us back down We'd see it heading back down towards 109 I could actually back down towards the recent lows that we saw in early October in around one spot 08 79 Take a look at the British pound as I mentioned starting to do well today after Boris got got his I got all the MPs standing of the Tory MPs pledge his their support for the deal he struck with Brussels. So We saw obviously I've seen a major rebound in the British pound in the last couple of months Starting is the pushing higher at the last few sessions with a steady decline in negative momentum. So we so things are heading so the back that which kind of adds weight to the argument that they're going to see push higher in the pound dollar Or at least it's Confirming the the recent positive move. So if you press on higher from here We can look at retesting one one spot 30 and beyond that We could be chart retesting recent high at one spot 30 12 and a movie on that could take it's up to this area here The highs that we saw in a late early Bay in at one spot 31 78 Any move to the downside could find some support someone 28 But you know the recent lows were once by 27 68 I move below that could could put this this red line on the on the radar And it's in at once by 27 oh three Take a look now. What's going on in gold? So the gold market at a phenomenal rally into September we're in a six year high, but ever since then it's actually been pushing a bit lower Take a look at the gold market. It's really gonna failed to go struggle to get above the kind of 15 19 mark. So it's been acting a bit of a cap ever so ever recent ever so recently under the downside The level that we hit here was a level last seen In August so it reached a three month low not that long ago And they should we continue to kind of press and lower from here We could be looking at this area here in around 14 30 As a benign area of support for the further for should market to move to the downside So notice how after hitting a six-year high We became as fine as soon as you can higher highs and lower lows So things are still looking recently negative in the near term for gold So a drop back below the recent low could take us back down toward this zone here in around 14 30 And if you move below that we could be heading back down toward the psychology point 1400 mark See what's going on on Brent oil so we draw a Low between a line between the lows of October and it should could early In early October and also true later to where we get this trend line here, which has been supported nicely On a few occasions and essentially while we hold above that trend line. It's likely we could see Further moves to the upside and should be present higher from here We could be retesting this red line here the 30 moving average in a 64 spot 86 And I will be on that on Brent could take us up toward this area here The highs of mid-September in around 65 spot 79 If you do have a fairly size of break below this trend line We can then look retesting this zone here just south of 60 dollars a bar It's obviously a big psychological number, but also access support at the end of October and last you've been at least WTI obviously it's a fairly similar concert what we saw on Brent So once again, we draw a low but a line between the lows of October Kind of mid October we get this trend line here. Notice how in WTI The market is comfortable to be above but it hasn't even really get retested it more recently so markets well above It's the end the trend line But on top of that it's actually managed to hold above close above and trade above This red line here the turning moving average. So it seems that the the WTI market isn't isn't far better It's in better shape than the in the Brent market I feel like the press on higher from here and if you could take all this area here in around 58 dollars a barrel We're gonna be head back up for the kind of cycle as she boarded 60 bucks a barrel Eddie moves to the downside in WTI could find some support from this blue line here The fifth of the moving average and that comes to play a 55 spot 67 I'll give a size to move below that. We're gonna head back down for this trend line here Retest that potentially in around 54 dollars per barrel Well, that's all for me. Thank you very much and please tune in next week. Thank you