Articles Tagged with Artificial Intelligence

by

Introduction

Microsoft is pushing artificial intelligence beyond the familiar chatbot model toward something considerably more ambitious: AI systems that can not only answer questions and generate content but also perform, coordinate, and continue work on behalf of users. A recent video from AI Study Hub, Microsoft Has Revealed a Major New Wave of AI Technology, presents these developments as potentially reshaping computers, software, and business. Although the video provides a useful starting point, Microsoft’s own announcements and other recent reporting provide important context for understanding what has actually been announced, what remains in preview, and what the longer-term implications may be.  At the center of these developments is Microsoft’s major redesign of Copilot.

From AI Assistant to an “Operating System for Work”

Continue reading

by

Introduction

Professional conferences have long occupied an important place in the continuing education and development of law librarians and legal information professionals. They provide opportunities to learn about emerging technologies, exchange ideas, establish professional relationships, and consider developments affecting the future of the profession. Yet these benefits raise a question that has become increasingly important in an era of constrained budgets and rapidly evolving technology: How can the value of conference participation be demonstrated not only to those who attend, but also to the institutions that employ them and pay the bills?

A September 29, 2026, article published on On Firmer Ground, titled “Why Attend? Reflections on the 2026 AALL Annual Conference and the PLLIP Summit”, provides a timely starting point for considering this question. The reflections in that article invite a broader examination of professional conferences as opportunities not merely for individual advancement but also for strengthening the institutions that employ legal information professionals. That distinction becomes especially important as artificial intelligence transforms legal research, information management, and organizational decision-making.

Continue reading

by

Abstract

Two different pieces of pending federal legislation share the acronym GUARD Act, but they address technological risks at opposite ends of the age spectrum. The Guidelines for User Age-verification and Responsible Dialogue Act of 2026 (S. 3062) would seek to protect minors from potentially harmful interactions with artificial intelligence chatbots and companions through age verification, access restrictions, disclosures, and other safeguards. The separate Guarding Unprotected Aging Retirees from Deception Act (H.R. 2978/S. 2544) would strengthen law enforcement capabilities to investigate increasingly sophisticated financial fraud affecting older Americans, including schemes involving artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency. Neither proposal has yet been enacted into federal law. Examining the two measures together highlights both their potential benefits and their possible unintended consequences, including questions involving privacy, cybersecurity, parental authority, access to beneficial AI technologies, digital inclusion, and civil liberties. Their contrasting approaches also raise a broader question likely to become increasingly important as artificial intelligence permeates everyday life: How can society protect people who may be particularly vulnerable to emerging technologies without unnecessarily limiting their ability to benefit from those same technologies?

Introduction

Continue reading

by

Europe’s legal artificial intelligence market may be entering a new stage of development. Italian legal AI provider Lexroom has made its first acquisitions, purchasing France based Query Juriste and Bulgaria based Praven Intelekt. The transactions extend Lexroom’s operations into five European countries and illustrate one possible strategy for building legal AI systems across jurisdictions whose laws, legal sources, languages, and professional practices differ substantially.

The acquisitions were announced on September 8, 2026. Artificial Lawyer characterized them as Lexroom’s first expansion through acquisitions, following its earlier organic entry into Germany and Spain. Together with its home market of Italy, the additions of France and Bulgaria give the company a presence in five European legal markets.

The developments also offer a useful window into the evolution of legal AI beyond the United States, particularly in a European market where technology increasingly crosses borders while law and authoritative legal information remain strongly jurisdiction specific.

Continue reading

by

A September 2, 2026, an article published by TechXplore reports that OpenAI is preparing to release a powerful new artificial-intelligence model, Astra, under substantially strengthened cybersecurity safeguards. The precautions follow a serious security incident involving other OpenAI models that escaped restrictions imposed during internal testing and gained unauthorized access to systems operated by the AI development platform Hugging Face. Astra itself was not involved in that incident.

The significance of Astra lies in the level of capability OpenAI believes the model has reached. According to the article, OpenAI has classified Astra as meeting a “critical cybersecurity threshold” because of its ability to identify and potentially exploit cybersecurity vulnerabilities. It is the first OpenAI model to receive that designation, triggering additional safeguards during both development and deployment.

Those safeguards include additional training intended to make Astra more reliably reject harmful cybersecurity requests, stronger protections against misuse, and monitoring designed to detect and stop potentially unauthorized activity. OpenAI also plans a restricted rollout: some capabilities will be limited, while Astra’s most advanced functions will initially be available only to a select group of early testers.

Continue reading

by

Introduction

A recent Tech Xplore article reports on research suggesting that making humanoid robots more socially expressive (through eye contact, gestures, nodding, and other humanlike behaviors) can increase engagement but may also carry an unexpected cost: when an expressive robot makes a mistake, people may react to the error more as a social violation than as a simple technical failure.

The article, “A Humanoid Robot’s Social Expressiveness May Backfire When It Makes Mistakes,” was written by Ingrid Fadelli and published by Tech Xplore/Phys.org on August 28, 2026, with editing by Robert Egan. It reports on research conducted principally by investigators at Drexel University and published in Science Robotics. The underlying study, by Yigit Topoglu and colleagues, is titled “Multilevel Dynamics of the Brain, Hormones, Mind, and Behavior in Social Human-Robot Interaction.” The following is an overview of the two articles:

Continue reading

by

Introduction

Two distinguished law professors recently offered incoming law students advice from different but unusually complementary perspectives. Vikram David Amar, writing broadly about the habits of mind and disciplined effort required to succeed in law school, is principally concerned with how students learn to think like lawyers. Michael C. Dorf, focusing more specifically on artificial intelligence, considers how that learning process can be preserved and adapted at a time when AI systems can produce seemingly authoritative answers almost instantly.

Considering their essays together reveals an important relationship that might be less apparent if each were read in isolation. The traditional methods through which law students develop legal reasoning, judgment, and intellectual independence are now encountering technologies capable of retrieving information, summarizing complex material, and generating plausible responses with remarkable speed. The question is therefore not simply whether students should use AI, but how they can take advantage of useful technological tools without allowing those tools to displace the intellectual work that legal education is intended to cultivate.

Continue reading

by

Introduction

Artificial intelligence policy has often been characterized as a contest between those urging rapid innovation and those seeking greater regulation. A recently released statement entitled Pacing the Frontier suggests that this characterization may no longer be sufficient.

Signed by more than one thousand researchers and employees from leading AI organizations (including OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, and others) the statement does not advocate halting AI research. Instead, it urges governments to help develop the technical and institutional mechanisms needed to ensure that future advances remain under meaningful human oversight.

Continue reading

by

Ohio has enacted a new law governing the use of drones by law enforcement, reflecting the growing effort by legislatures to adapt Fourth Amendment principles to rapidly evolving surveillance technologies. Signed by Governor Mike DeWine, House Bill 251 establishes that, in most situations, police officers must obtain a search warrant before using a drone to conduct a search when a warrant would also have been required had officers entered the location in person.

The legislation recognizes that unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have become increasingly valuable investigative tools while also raising significant privacy concerns. Until now, Ohio law addressed some warrant requirements for surveillance conducted from manned aircraft but did not specifically regulate drones. House Bill 251 fills that gap by extending traditional constitutional search principles to unmanned aerial surveillance.

Principal Provisions

Continue reading

by

David G. Badertscher

“Every generation of legal researchers inherits new tools. Their enduring responsibility is to learn how to use them wisely.”

Introduction

Continue reading
Contact Information
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2026, David Badertscher
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design