6163 research outputs found
Sort by
Defining the Social Licence of Large Language Models in Healthcare
Get PDFAs Large Language Models (LLMs) continue to grow and evolve, the ethical, social, and legal challenges they present, especially in terms of data use and sharing, come sharply into focus. Particularly in high-risk domains like healthcare, where the sensitivity of data is pronounced, and the ramifications of data leakages or misuse are profound. These licenses, envisioned to address the complexities introduced by LLMs, still grapple with barriers that hinder their full potential: notably, the absence of authoritative regulatory bodies, ambiguities in defining what constitutes \u27sufficient public benefit\u27, issues of data sovereignty, and dilemmas surrounding responsibility and liability. Herein, we delve into these intricacies, focusing on the evolution of social licenses, their relationship with prevailing governance model challenges, and the essential transformations required to ensure their safe and responsible deployment in the rapidly evolving world of LLMs
Session 5: Generative AI Tort Liability
Get PDFIn Session Five of the SITIE2024 Symposium titled “Generative AI Tort Liability,” Professor Mark Chinen discussed Tort law in relation to artificial intelligence. He began by discussing the emerging harms in software development and then transitioned to generative AI, identifying features relevant to tort liability. Chinen also addressed the actors and parties involved in AI development and use in tort law and explored the broad issues in tort law and generative AI. Focusing on the US context, he discussed harm related to Freedom of Expression and specific torts related to AI harms. Finally, he briefly discussed the European Union\u27s approach to tort liability and generative AI
Student Life E-Newsletter November 25, 2024
Get PDFhttps://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/studentlife/1158/thumbnail.jp
Stakeholder Capitalism’s Greatest Challenge: Reshaping a Public Consensus to Govern a Global Economy
Get PDFThe Berle XIV: Developing a 21st Century Corporate Governance Model Conference asks whether there is a viable 21st Century Stakeholder Governance model. In our conference keynote article, we argue that to answer that question yes requires restoring—to use Berle’s term—a “public consensus” throughout the global economy in favor of the balanced model of New Deal capitalism, within which corporations could operate in a way good for all their stakeholders and society, that Berle himself supported.
The world now faces problems caused in large part by the enormous international power of corporations and the institutional investors who dominate their governance. These include two fundamental problems threatening humanity: inequality and climate change. The traditional response by many corporate law scholars is that these are not corporate law’s problems.
Blinkered thinking like that was alien to Berle. He grappled with the need for structures ensuring corporate power would be exercised in a manner consistent with the public interest. Berle was pleased that a public consensus had been forged channeling corporate conduct in a direction beneficial to the many. And Berle recognized that corporate power was out-growing domestic constraints and the extension of New Deal values into the international economy was necessary.
Since his lifetime, however, the public consensus Berle championed has eroded. We use five core issues to show that corporate law is not a bystander but a contributor to that erosion and to some of humanity’s deep-est problems: the powerlessness of workers in comparison to institutional investors and the corrosive effects of this imbalance on inequality, fairness, and social stability; the realities of corporate externalities such as climate change and their implications for the residual claimant concept and corporate ac-countability; facilitation of tax avoidance via corporate law, thus undermining the governmental capacity to address issues like climate change, power, and consumer harm; the mismatch between the capacity and reach of the regulatory structures and social consensus that constrains corporate power and the scope of the markets in which corporations exert power; and the tolerance of corporate law for the unconstrained use of corporate power for political purposes, and its negative effect on the ability of government to implement stakeholder-protective policies.
We confront these issues by identifying elements of countervailing policy to reshape a consensus supportive of stakeholder governance and New Deal capitalism. For corporate law to be a force for good, and not facilitate environmental harm and economic unfairness, it must stop pretending that core issues are solely for other bodies of law to address. If we don’t channel corporate power in a fair and sustainable direction, our descendants will be the residual claimants of our excesses and inequities
A Different Approach to Agency Theory and Implications For ESG
Get PDFIn conventional agency theory, the agent is modeled as exerting unobservable “effort” that influences the distribution over outcomes the principal cares about. Recent papers instead allow the agent to choose the entire distribution, an assumption that better describes the extensive and flexible control that CEOs have over firm outcomes. Under this assumption, the optimal contract rewards the agent directly for outcomes the principal cares about, rather than for what those outcomes reveal about the agent’s effort. This article briefly summarizes this new agency model and discusses its implications for contracting on ESG activities
Capitalism Stakeholderism
Get PDFToday’s corporate governance debates are replete with discussion of how best to operationalize so-called stakeholder capitalism—that is, a version of capitalism that considers the interests of employees, communities, suppliers, and the environment alongside (if not before) a company’s shareholders. So much focus has been dedicated to the question of capitalism’s reform that few have questioned a key underlying premise of stakeholder capitalism: that is, that competitive capitalism does not serve these various constituencies and groups. This Essay presents a different view and argues that capitalism is, in fact, the ultimate form of stakeholderism. As such, the Essay urges that the best way to elevate the welfare of all stakeholders in a society is to maximally free markets, leaving the State with limited responsibilities in the marketplace—namely, to calibrate incentives for pro-social innovation, regulate evident market-failures, and occasionally provide for public goods
How to Interpret the Securities Laws?
Get PDFIn discussions of the federal securities laws, the SEC usually gets most of the attention. This makes some sense. After all, it is the agency charged with administrating the securities laws and regulating the industry as a whole. It makes the majority of the laws; it engages in enforcement actions; it reacts to crises; and it, or sometimes even its individual commissioners, intervene publicly in policy debates. Often overlooked in such discussion, however, is the role of the Supreme Court in shaping securities law, and a new book by Adam Pritchard and Robert Thompson demonstrates why this is an oversight. The reason? Because, as we learn from Pritchard and Thompson, the Supreme Court has been hugely influential in federal securities law since really their inception. Perhaps not surprisingly, certain Justices have left a more significant mark than others on the field. But in Pritchard & Thompson’s telling, few have left a more significant influence than Lewis Powell.
The mark of a great book is the reflection that it generates. And by that standard, Pritchard and Thompson’s book is truly great. Which brings us back to our original question: How then should one interpret the federal securities laws? The answer is that we should interpret them in the common law tradition, by considering the deficiency in the common law that led to their passage. This approach is arguably so thoroughly entrenched in the Court’s insider trading jurisprudence, it’s hard to imagine how (let alone why) to disentangle it. And with respect to everything else, that’s simply how the Court interpreted the securities laws for the first years of their existence. And, thus, while there might be disagreement about whether the common law tradition of reading statutes should be preserved as a general matter, when it comes to securities law, the answer should be far less controversial
A Performative Model for Conducting Critical Race Analysis: Josephine Baker, Modern Dance, and Utilizing Narrative to Transform Legal Doctrine
Get PDFVerses Turned to Verdicts: YSL RICO Case Sets a High-Watermark for the Legal Pseudo-Censorship of Rap Music
Get PDFWhichever way you spin the record, rap music and courtrooms don’t mix. On one side, rap records are well known for their unapologetic lyrical composition, often expressing a blatant disregard for legal institutions and authorities. On the other, court records reflect a Van Gogh’s ear for rap music, frequently allowing rap lyrics—but not similar lyrics from other genres—to be used as criminal evidence against the defendants who authored them. Over the last thirty years, this immiscibility has engendered a legal landscape where prosecutors wield rap lyrics as potent instruments for criminal prosecution. In such cases, color-blind courts neglect that rap is a genre originating from and predominantly performed by Black musicians, hence becoming complicit in catalyzing this targeted weaponization of rap music, chilling Black artistic expression, and effectively stripping the genre of its creative license.
Though hardly a novel challenge for rap artists, the pending criminal conspiracy case against Jeffrey Williams, professionally known as Young Thug, prompts a renewed sense of urgency in drawing a bright line between fictional rap lyrics and probative criminal evidence. Building from notable scholarship in this field, this Note situates the law’s disproportionate maltreatment of rap music within the broader canvas of systemic racism to propose avenues for how the law may evolve to accommodate the persistent intersections between rap music and the judicial system. By delineating clear parameters for the admissibility of rap lyrics as evidence to address troubling bias in juror perceptions, this framework seeks to find a balance between protecting Black artistic expression and preserving the integrity of criminal proceedings