Spring has almost sprung! I write this column with haste to make the most of two consecutive sunny, blue-skied days in Blighty.
Somebody would think there was a musical festival on in Hyde Park, as merry Londoners descend upon green spaces in droves, shirts off (it is still only 5-10 degrees outside), trying their best to replenish depleted stores of Vitamin D and joy.
Aside from the change in weather, there seems to be brewing new geopolitical storms across the Atlantic, as the Trump administration continues to trouble the international community – first by banning paper straws and now his disastrous White House mud wrestle with Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Zelenskyy’s trip made Keir Starmer’s journey to kiss the ring seem like an absolute triumph. Starmer extended an “unprecedented” invitation from His Majesty for a second full state visit – a gesture to which Trump responded with praise for Charles’ signature:
“That’s quite a signature isn’t it … beautiful.”
Off the back of these talks, Trump found a number of commonalities with the UK PM, “We like each other, frankly, and we like each other’s country.”
Here’s hoping the UK doesn’t land on the table as Trump’s 52nd state.
Sweet dreams
Magistrate Edwin Hastings-Smith JP has been issued with formal advice for misconduct following his sentencing remarks, in which he told the defendant, “You have had your day of freedom, now back to prison. Sweet dreams”.
While we might all might be fans of the 1983 Eurythmics hit (or even Beyoncé’s 2009 single, for those Gen Z readers), sometimes a sentencing might not be the best occasion to drop a sick lyric.
The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) held that the comment was unnecessary and fell below the standards expected of beaks.
The inappropriate remark also prompted the defendant to get angry, apparently putting a nearby prison officer at risk of injury.
Magistrate Hastings-Smith has since taken responsibility for the remark, apologising to both the defendant and prison officer for any distress. He has also admitted the comment was inappropriate, unnecessary and unacceptable.
Alas, maybe Hastings-Smith’s sweet dream did turn into a beautiful nightmare © Beyoncé.
Copyright done wrong
More than 1,000 musicians, including Kate Bush and Annie Lennox, have released a silent album in protest of the UK government’s proposed changes to copyright law.
Artists claim the change would enable AI companies to train their models using copyrighted work without obtaining a license.
The 47-minute album called This What We Want features sound recordings of empty studio noise and performance spaces, illustrating artists’ fear about the proposed changes to copyright law. The tracks are titled 1. The 2. British 3. Government 4. Must 5. Not 6. Legalise 7. Music 8. Theft 9. To 10. Benefit 11. AI 12. Companies.
This is actually a very similar approach to the one I take when messaging my father when he won’t pay attention to me.
Dad.
Pick.
Up.
The.
Phone.
The government is currently consulting on proposed changes to intellectual property law in the age of AI. A spokesman for the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) said:
“[The UK’s] current regime for copyright and AI is holding back the creative industries, media and AI sector from realising their full potential – and that cannot continue.
“That’s why we have been consulting on a new approach that protects the interests of both AI developers and right holders and delivers a solution which allows both to thrive.”
Sir Paul McCartney said the proposed changes could enable “rip off” technology, making it impossible for artists to make a liveable wage. I wonder what Sir Paul defines as a liveable wage (a billion?)
Lawyers fear lack of AI adoption
A new LexisNexis survey of over 887 UK lawyers has revealed that lawyers fear their careers will take a hit if their firms don’t embrace AI. It’s like gazelles wanting to invite lions into the office.
36% of respondents said that their firm’s reticence or failure to embrace AI tools would negatively impact their career, with one in five lawyers saying they would consider leaving their firm if they didn’t invest in AI. Working until 5am? Fine. Not having a Chatbot assistant? I’m out of here!
LexisNexis’ research, while thorough, made no mention of the conflict between AI efficiencies and the billable hour. So long as the billable hour reigns supreme, law firms are disincentivised to make their staff too productive.
Sure, Chat GPT may enable lawyers to skip menial tasks like doc review, or summarising, but how will they hit all their billable targets if 40 hours’ work is reduced to 10 seconds?
Despite this dichotomy, the report concludes: “Firms will become more reliant on AI for legal research and document review in the next 1-3 years.”
Then again, no doubt AI wrote the report.
