Emily Chow is an IPilogue Writer and a 1L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

This article is part of a series covering the 5th Annual IP Data & Research Conference, hosted by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office and the Centre for International Governance Innovation.

I attended the The panel broadly discussed how underrepresented groups navigate the IP and innovation space. I left the presentations with a better understanding of what various public service groups are doing to promote diversity, equity and inclusion (“DEI”) initiatives in their practices.

The first speaker was Peigi Wilson, research manager for the . Her presentation was titled “First Nations Data Sovereignty and the Intellectual Property Regime”. FNIGC’s mandate arose from trying to address the data gap caused by from three major national population surveys. Now, the FNIGC asserts data sovereignty and supports the development of information governance and management at the community level through regional and national partnerships.

After a brief overview of First Nations rights and sources, Wilson defined what First Nations Data is and how it is founded on the principles of . I thought it was quite powerful when she said that First Nations Data is “acquired from First Nations, by First Nations.” Some include data from resources and the environment,

With funding from Indigenous Services Canada, FNIGC is currently researching First Nations’ interests respecting orphan works and artists’ resale rights and developing possible solutions regarding opportunities to co-develop new laws or policies. Wilson emphasized that DEI initiatives are more than ensuring that First Nations have a seat at the table; it means that First Nations must have a role in the decision-making process as active participants in IP policy reform and innovation. She stressed the importance of recognizing Canada’s pluralistic foundations beyond the English/French history to include First Nations legal systems. She also called upon attendees to consider how they may shape new processes for consultation, free, prior, and informed consent, and co-development to address the economic inequality inherent in the system.

The next speakers were from the , a pilot non-profit organization whose mandate is to facilitate data-driven, clean-tech innovation amongst Canadian businesses. Lori DeGraw (vice president of partnerships and member engagement) and Julia Culpeper (program manager of education and strategy) jointly presented “Women and IP: Promoting Inclusion in the Innovation Ecosystem”. The IAC helps Canadian small-medium enterprises (“SMEs”) better understand, generate, commercialize, and protect their IP.

IAC presented the results of a on women’s underrepresentation in the Canadian IP ecosystem. Capturing qualitative data from their inaugural , the study re-emphasized the need to build capacity for women in the IP field, and, in doing so, create a framework to replicate with other equity-seeking groups. They are currently working on three programs to increase community and networking, outreach, and policy and advocacy for women.

One program aims to tackle the inequitable gender balance in patent filing by implementing a twice-annual grant for women to fund IP. $50k is available twice a year to IAC member companies led, founded, or owned by women. .

The last presentation was a partnership between the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“”) and (“StatsCan”) on “The Awareness and Use of Intellectual Property by Underrepresented Groups in Canada: Insights from Survey and Administrative Data”. Speakers Danny Leung (director of Economic Analysis Division at StatsCan) and Eric Rowe (team leader of Service Insights at CIPO) highlighted results from two studies: the and the

The IPAU study found that 9% of female primary decision makers of businesses had IP that they chose not to formally protect, compared to their male counterparts at 5.4%. Another interesting statistic was that women clients were generally less satisfied with CIPO services overall (51%) than male clients (55%).

The two studies found that firms that file for patent applications are disproportionately more often owned by men. They also found that women-owned businesses are less likely to have their applications for funding granted (54.8%) as compared to their male counterparts (56.1%). More promisingly, however, patent applications by women-owned businesses grew by 133% from 2001 to 2015. Women-owned business were more likely to file patent applications in chemical engineering and medical technology than men-owned businesses. Further research on women’s experiences filing patents could be useful in understanding the trends in the data.

Overall, the presentations were a significant reminder that we still have so much more to do to level the playing field for women-owned and First Nations-owned businesses. However, with organizations like the IAC and FNIGC spearheading new programs and tools, one can be cautiously optimistic about the future of innovation in Canada.

The post Diversity in IP: Notes from the 5th Annual IP Data & Research Conference appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Image by Tim Mossholder ()

Emily Chow is an��IPilogue��Writer and a 1L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.��

From the limited scope of my research as a 1L student, as well as my personal interest, I have noticed a lack of creative voices within the legal realms that apply to them. On the one hand, social media has enabled global sharing of news and creative media. However, it also brings new dimensions to copyright and trademark issues. This observation, coupled with seeing multiple artists be exploited by Instagram users and large companies, motivated me to reach out to several creatives online and bring their voices to the IPilogue.

This article features three artists I met over the course of my research:

• Kaitlin Chan (they/she), an autobiographical cartoonist from Hong Kong;
• Tabathia Smith (she/her), a laser-cutting small business owner; and
• Michelle Rial (she/her), a Venezuelan-Spanish-American author and illustrator.

Their extended biographies are included at the end of this article. I am extremely grateful for their time and energy in sharing their experiences.

This article was prompted in part by Tabathia, also known as The Adorned Fox (“TAF”), whose spurred me to reach out and learn more about her experience. This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity; all emphases are mine.

Emily (E): What prompted you to protect TAF and trademark your brand?

Tabathia (T): "A company private messaged me, pretty much accusing me of trademark infringement. After doing my research on their company and trademark, it was very clear this business was trying to intimidate me into changing my business name in hopes I would just do what they say. It was a scary moment for me as a small business, as I couldn’t imagine trying to rebrand. That’s when I knew I had to protect TAF."

E: What were you looking for in your trademark lawyer? Do you have any comments on accessing legal services for yourself?

T: "I was very fortunate in having a father-in-law who knows a lot of lawyers. He reached out to several and they got me in contact with my trademark lawyer."

This was interesting to me as accessing legal services appears grounded in the power dynamic between independent artists and larger companies. According to the World Justice Project, in the past two years. Of those, were able to access help. These folks . This suggests that having a network of legally literate connections (or those who are connected to lawyers) is a significant asset in accessing justice on par with the utility of a lawyer itself. Tabathia also touched upon the issue of disproportionate access to justice for small businesses.

Based on these insights, I was curious about what artists who have gone through some form of legal process would say to their peers.

E: What advice would you give to fellow artists and makers on social media on sharing their work? Is there anything you would have liked to know before or during the legal process that you know now?

T: "If I knew [a trademark dispute] would have ever been a possibility, I would have trademarked my business name immediately all these years ago when I started. I would tell other small businesses that if you are serious about your brand and business, definitely look into protecting what’s yours. Also, it’s important to have [a] LLC [limited liability company] to start the process of a trademark. I didn’t realize that either until after talking with my lawyer."

Kaitlin (K): "My advice would be to not undervalue your work, no matter its scale or the size of your platform. It's easy as an emerging artist on social media to feel like you have to allow any kind of commenting, sharing, and reposting because you are a beginner; but you always have room to say no to having your work used or shared in ways that don't align with you. Your instincts are usually right about this."

Michelle (M): "There are ways to get your [infringed] work taken down by filling out a copyright report. No one is allowed to use or repost what you make without your permission. If something feels exploitative, it probably is and it’s within your right to get it taken down. Accounts often take a long time to respond if you ask them by sending a message. They will often be upset as well. It’s helpful to remember that they didn’t take the time to make anything, and they are taking your time, work, and energy, and reaping the benefit. They have no right to be upset."

Each artist emphasized the importance of individual instincts and understanding your rights. Although these artists were not subject to the Canadian legal system, the nature of the internet surpasses national borders, as do the practices and cultures embedded within them.

E: What would you like to see happen in terms of the culture of social media artists and their followers? What is your stance on people or large companies reposting your work on their accounts or other social media platforms?

T: "Honestly, my account came up in a time when artists and small businesses loved having features on social media platforms. It definitely got my accounts where they are today. Most were very nice to work with and always gave credit where it was due, which in turn boosted your pages. Social media now has changed so much; it’s mainly up to you to create good content or relatable content for it to “go viral”. It is a much different “concoction” than several years ago."

K: "What I would like to see is institutions and companies actively reaching out to people to clarify consent before reposting artists’ work[s] in their feed, especially seeing as corporate representatives may not even know if the artist wants to be associated with their��brand or company. There is an assumption that […] any attention is good attention, and I do not think this is always true. Sometimes, exposing a vulnerable creator to an audience who is not familiar with their broader portfolio and life context can be triggering and frustrating, especially if their work is about their experiences. Not asking someone if you can share their comic about depression before reposting it to your tens or hundreds of thousands of followers is irresponsible and can read as disrespectful of the time the illustrator put into the original artwork."

E: What has your experience been like collaborating with other makers? What about with larger brands (i.e., did you feel properly equipped to negotiate terms or conduct business)? What were some positive or negative experiences you’ve had?

K: "I have had difficulty understanding longer contracts, especially when I was first starting out. It was advice from other artists that lifted me up and taught me to look out for usage clauses—the ways in which my work could potentially be changed or used in the future. With basic negotiating skills and an awareness of how my work would be presented and utilized, I felt more empowered to ask for my true worth instead of just anxiously accepting whatever terms or fees I am initially presented with."

M: "It's often a negative experience because they never ask, and the culture is to use whatever you want. If it's an obvious��thing where they're "crediting" you but hiding your name behind their own promo, I go straight to copyright removal because I don't owe them anything; they’ve already used my work for free and benefitted. It can be beneficial to both parties if they are a large account that’s actually making an effort to showcase you as well as your work, but I rarely see that. Social media "gurus" will teach people how to exploit other people's work for account growth so everyone just assumes they can use anything. I often do not feel equipped to negotiate because brands are used to using anything they find for free."

It was especially impactful when Michelle noted that she is, “super negative on this at the moment, just because [she has] spent so much time trying to advocate for [her]self and it takes away the time [she] could be making things.”

I can attest to this. Following Michelle on LinkedIn, I see how often LinkedIn users repost her graphics to boost their own posts or announcements. I can only imagine the time it takes to catch these and comment to claim ownership and promote the book in which these graphics are published.

Through this limited sample of artists, I hope to encourage and remind legal professionals, marketers, and the broader public to consider their practices and use these reflections to inform decisions. Given the privileged position these professions hold, I believe more can be done to make the process of sharing art more equitable and mutually beneficial.

One form this could take is obtaining consent and structuring captions in a way that the artist prefers. For instance, should the first words in the caption state the authors name and account? How can businesses utilize the comments section and ability to pin individual comments to amplify the original creators?

Centering these experiences in one’s practice, no matter what jurisdiction or field, will be a positive step towards supporting all forms of creative development and the livelihoods of makers.

If you are an artist or small business owner interested in learning more about your intellectual property rights, the can help you obtain the information you need to get started. Learn more about engaging the Clinic’s services .

About the Artists:

(they/she) is an autobiographical cartoonist and gallery worker from Hong Kong. Over 17.3k followers on Instagram engage with their stories, which have appeared in The New 91��ɫer online (where I originally saw their work!), The Margins, Popula, ArtAsiaPacific, The Offing, AWRY, and the Hong Kong Visual Arts Yearbook. In 2018, they co-founded Queer Reads Library, a mobile library that centres queer Asian perspectives by curating publications, organizing reading corners, and hosting public programs. They are also an avid zine contributor, telling stories about quiet moments, friendship, and reflections about their life: everything from leaving religion and finding emo music, to friend breakups, and the banal beauty of city life.

is the maker behind , a hand-lettering Instagram account turned laser-cut, engraving, and painting business with over 66.5k followers. I originally followed her when she was still primarily a hand-lettering account, back in the days of one of my own (failed) attempts to participate in the “artstagram” community. Tabathia is a dynamic artist who strives to learn and grow in new ways, and is always looking to improve her craft as a small business owner.

is the author and illustrator of (2019) and its recent successor, (2021). She’s a Venezuelan-Spanish-American who calls the Bay Area home. She has amassed over 99.2k followers on Instagram with her candid graphics and charts of whimsical, everyday dilemmas of adulthood, including living with chronic illness.

The post Centering Artists’ Voices Within IP Discourse appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Mohamed Hassan ()

Meena Alnajar is an IPilogue Writer, IP Innovation Clinic Fellow, and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

2021 was a big year for innovation and small businesses—venture capital (“VC”) funding reached an all-time high with higher funding in the US than the total raised in 2020. are investors who provide funds to small businesses and start-ups that exhibit exceptional growth potential based on market studies. In return, investors get equity in the company and may have a say in future decisions. It is an increasingly and fast way to fund new businesses. Yet despite this growth, women-founded companies receive just a small cut of this large investment. In particular, women-founded companies earned only percent of the . What stands between women’s ideas and the capital that helps them flourish? Industry barriers and sociocultural changes may provide some answers.

With unemployment on the rise, several studies find women are disproportionately affected by industry setbacks. A study found that women were 1.8 times more vulnerable to lose work than men in the pandemic, which may have made investors nervous to fund many women-led businesses this year. Beyond the pandemic context, some attitudes within the VC industry that may also drive the disparity between men and women’s VC funding.

In the industry, gender stereotypes not only create a barrier to hiring women in the start-up space, but also seek to discredit a woman’s value when pursuing certain ventures. For instance, , CEO and Co-Founder of the venture-backed tech company Vivoom, noted that “Male VCs … are very comfortable now giving female entrepreneurs capital for ”, like the stereotypical household and baby products, but hesitate to fund cutting-edge software and technology founded by women. While women are now welcome in the venture space, there seems to be only certain rooms they can enter if they want to be well-funded by male VCs. Those in control of the funds seemingly control the gender disparity in VC funding of certain companies. Could the solution to the disparity be to encourage more women to act as investors?

The disparity in funding women-led ventures could stem from the fact that women make up only 6.3% of investors, based on . However, simply including more women as investors is unlikely to alleviate the disparity observed in VC funding. Women-identifying investors face problems when attempting to back ventures. Since women also experience gender disparity in business leadership, women who are investors are less likely to have been . Entrepreneurs to accept money from (and relinquish equity to) investors without this experience. The proportion of women as venture capitalists is not the only issue; how women venture capitalists are perceived by entrepreneurs is also problematic. On the surface, women-identifying VCs have investment success rates than men. Upon further examination, this performance difference is venture selection, but rather the VC firm’s features such as . Selecting women-identifying investors is not a proven solution to alleviating gender disparity. However, co-workers and entrepreneurs supporting women investors in their work environments can further women-led VC success.

The gender disparity affects several stages of the VC pipeline, from investor disparities to the lack of women-led VC in prominent sectors like tech. To close this gap, business institutes recommend of a small business. For example, if a start-up classifies itself as a social impact venture, investors should utilize the peer-assessment model instead of estimating capital flow to determine the “investability” of that venture. In addition, having positions may overcome stereotypes and biases from investors by providing evidence that women can lead successful businesses.

The gender disparity not only hinders women-led VC potential but also dismisses women-led VC’s success in the market. found that women-led start-ups can deliver high revenues, nearly twice the amount of every dollar invested. Further, women-led businesses are to employ women and their businesses are more likely to focus on and employee relationships. When you invest in women, it propagates into more opportunities for women and positive contributions to societal issues like labour relations. Limiting women’s access to funding could deprive us from innovative ideas and employment opportunities. Women have been driving exceptional businesses in the last decade and can continue to do so with greater investment. VCs should therefore consider looking beyond stereotypes and invest in women, to invest in better futures.

The post The Future is Funding? Women Receive Just 2% From a Big VC Funding Year appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by

Meena Alnajar is an IPilogue Writer, IP Innovation Clinic Fellow, and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

��

On July 7, 2021, I attended the World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO) second session of their three-part series, “Closing the Gender Gap in IP” titled “Exploring Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives”. The series aims to encourage greater participation by women in the innovation ecosystem. In 2020, women filed . While this number marks an increase in PCT patent filings by women , the percentage rose only from over fifteen years despite of research in the life sciences while in university positions. WIPO recognizes that the gender gap is multi-faceted, stemming from intertwining economic, educational, and informational barriers.

Sarah Callegari, WIPO’s Gender and Diversity Specialist, began the event by outlining the current data on the gender gap in IP. Callegari explained that while we have gender-stratified information on PCT patent filings, the same cannot be said for trademarks or other forms of IP. Missing data is attributed to a lack of transparency, which gender-sensitive technology can help to resolve. The worldwide gender-name dictionary generated the current pattern by disaggregating inventors’ names by gender. Callegari recommends that other IP offices utilize this dictionary to obtain further gender-stratified data in trademarks and other IP filings. WIPO estimates that if the gender disparity in IP is left alone, gender parity in patent filings will not be achieved for another 40 years.

On a similar note, gender-sensitive technology can also construct barriers for women. , CEO and founder of Women at the Table, is a coalition builder. She is currently heading the A+ Alliance for Inclusive Algorithms. Unconscious bias perpetuates gender disparity in technology and innovation spaces. These biases spill over into the artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithm space. Callegari recommended unconscious bias sensitivity training. However, unconscious bias invades algorithms uncontrollably. In 2018, was found to from all-women colleges and resumes with the word “women’s” in them when vetting for ideal candidates. In effect, Amazon’s recruitment system was revealing and reinforcing gender disparity in technical fields. Kraft-Buchman suggested that partnerships between women and tech creators are essential in controlling gender bias in data sets. Tech companies need to recruit women, especially for designing AI algorithms, even if they are not tech experts, to show companies how to train algorithms to remove implicit biases and promote women’s presence in the fields of IP and technology.

was the final speaker at the event. Fechner is a partner at Covington and Burling LLP and the Executive Director of the Invent Together coalition. Multistakeholder initiatives are key because they provide opportunities for women to invent and have their input valued and included. Studies have demonstrated that . The environment in which an individual grows up, therefore, plays a significant role in promoting innovation. Fechner suggests that the idea of inventing together is critical in expanding the innovation ecosystem to include more women. She highlights universities as key partners in promoting the initiative. However, an ongoing problem is that universities are limited in patenting activity. Universities do not value patenting as much as publication when granting tenure positions to professors. Thus, women academics are disincentivized to patent if they plan to further their academic career through tenure. While it may be simple to ask universities to promote women’s presence in the innovation space, systemic barriers within academia would still discourage women from focusing on their IP. These large-scale problems require large-scale solutions, such as legislative change. The has been proposed to allow the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to collect demographic data to precisely measure the and to incorporate the data into future national strategies dedicated to closing the gender gap in IP.

WIPO’s event underscores the gaps not only among genders in IP, but in our understanding of the extent to which gender disparities pervade IP and technology. Turning to multi-stakeholder initiatives means building coalitions to encourage women’s participation in innovation and remove the implicit biases that sustain the gender gap. As WIPO’s Deputy-Director General Lisa Jorgenson stated during the event, we are “missing out on a vast capital of ingenuity and creativity” if we maintain the gender gap at its current rate.

The post WIPO’s “Closing the Gender Gap in IP: Exploring Multistakeholder Initiatives”- Wielding Inclusivity through Technology appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Why are women’s voices underrepresented in the media?

Statistics show that male voices and perspectives , traditional and otherwise. When you include other identifying factors - such as race, sexuality, and religion - the gap further widens. None of this or new information. While the gender gap is , there is still a lot of work needed be done to help amplify previously invisible voices. As the recent social unrest triggered by the tragic death of George Floyd illustrates, when one group dominates a narrative, it often leads to the or lived realties.

Social scientists suggest that part of the reason why women’s voices are missing from society, even today, is because of the . Males are taught to be and that their voices have value. Females are raised to be quiet and docile. Gender socialization is complex, and anyone that breaks the mold is harassed and bullied.

Recent studies show that women leaders for abuse on social media. Teenage environmental activist, Greta Thunberg, has been repeatedly targeted by men, including . Movie stars, like and , were forced to delete their social media because of relentless harassment. Fear of getting bullied is one of the main reasons women may reject the opportunities they do receive.

How can I add value to this discussion?

��Another reason, as was articulated by Shari in the seminar, is the notion of, “am I the best person?” Shari stated that women sometimes have a knee-jerk reaction to reject new opportunities because they believe they are not the best person or authority on the topic. ��Shari suggested that instead of thinking, “am I the best person?” women should instead ask themselves whether they can add value to a topic by adding their opinion. Naturally, self-doubt is not exclusive to one gender. However, statistics do show that women for positions because they feel that they are .

Admittedly, I wondered whether I was the best person when asked if anyone would like to attend and blog about the event. Even as I write this, I’m trying to change my mindset and think about the value I can add to this piece by incorporating my experiences and perspectives. Among all the wonderful strategies offered, this deceptively simple approach has resonated with me the most.

If you’d like to learn more about Informed Opinions, and attend a workshop to amplify your own voice or someone else’s, click . If you’d like to attend CAN-TECH’s annual law conference in October, .

Nikita Munjal is an IPilogue Editor, Clinic Fellow with the Innovation Clinic, and a JD/MBA Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The post Am I The Best Person? Reflections on CAN-TECH’s Women in the Tech Webinar appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The event began with a morning forum aimed at providing an interdisciplinary exploration of artificial intelligence systems and the effects of these technologies on the day’s themes. Moderated by , Counsel with the Law Commission of Ontario, the morning’s speakers included Insiya Essajee, Professor Trevor Farrow, Professor Regina Rini and Professor Ruth Urner.

Insiya Essajee is Counsel at the Ontario Human Rights Commission. is a professor of philosophy at 91��ɫ who teaches and writes on a number of topics in ethics, including the moral status of artificial intelligence. Professor teaches in the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science department of the Lassonde School of Engineering, with a focus on machine learning and the societal aspects of this technology. is a professor at Osgoode Hall Law School, with a research and teaching focus on access to justice, and legal and judicial ethics.

The paneled discussion was organized into 3 sections:

• What is AI, and what kinds of concerns do these technologies raise? How might we address these challenges?
  
  
• How does the use of ? What does the use of AI mean for human rights and inclusion?
  
  
• Moving forward, what should we be prioritizing in responding to AI?

How is AI Used Day-to-Day and What Kind of Concerns are Raised by the use of AI?

The panel opened with moderator Ryan Fritsch describing some of the different uses for AI, and the associated benefits and concerns. Fritsch described for the audience the way in which AI is currently in use all around us, almost everywhere we go. In certain circumstances, the benefit conferred by the technology is relatively uncontroversial. In health care for example, provides us with important health data at a rate of speed that would be impossible for a human to achieve. allow us to plan our lives in the safest way possible.

But what happens when machine learning is used to make decisions about people, as opposed to weather and radiology? ��Fritsch described some instances where AI is already being deployed in these kinds of scenarios: in , where AI is used to determine bail eligibility in various American jurisdictions based on “”, in predictive policing models , or in the use of on dating sites when it does not really exist.

With these examples in mind, Fritsch identified four areas of contention that arise in looking at AI technologies through the lens of human rights. Fritsch first recognized the transparency and disclosure issues that arise with AI technologies that we may or may not be aware of at any given moment or in any particular interaction. Questions of data, bias and discrimination came next – how is data generated? Who is developing these systems, and who is auditing the data that is produced? A third issue identified was one of “explainability”; that is, how do we ask a machine to explain the conclusion it has arrived at via machine learning? Further, how do we challenge or cross-examine AI? Finally, AI’s issues with inclusion and exclusion were identified, including problems of overinclusion when AI technologies based on historically biased data reproduces such bias.

How do we address these challenges?

The first question Fritsch posed to the panel was directed at professor Urner: are the issues identified above tech issues? If so, why is there no tech solution? According to Professor Urner, while technology shines a light on the issue of bias in data, it can’t actually provide any solutions, because the questions we’re asking and the issues we’re flagging aren’t technical at all. Addressing these challenges requires an interdisciplinary approach, involving conversations between technologists and scholars from other disciplines – philosophy, ethics and law, for example. Professor Urner urged us to remember that the benefits of AI come at a cost.

In response, Insiya Essajee suggested that while AI does indeed present issues, we can also look at the ways in which we can use AI to promote human rights. She provided the example of AI technologies helping organizations such as Universities meet their human rights requirements through initiatives like . In response to Fritsch’s question as to whether we need new laws in order to deal with the human rights challenges presented by AI, Essajee told the audience that she believes we already have the appropriate laws in place, as the already protects us from violations, whether they are committed by a person or a machine.

Regarding problems surrounding transparency and disclosure related to the use of AI, Professor Farrow argued that rule of law issues remain a major concern; everyone has the right to know by what standard they are being judged, and AI can make this impossible in a number of ways. First, people often do not know that AI is being used to make important decisions with real consequences to them. Second, there is no way to cross-examine a machine to understand how it arrived at its decision. Transparency and disclosure on the part of institutions can help address some of these concerns related to the rule of law, but solutions will need to be thought through on a continuing basis.

On the other hand, Farrow told the audience, AI has the potential to assist with access to justice goals. Citing research by Matthew Dylag, Farrow described Canada as experiencing an access to justice crisis, with AI technologies offering a way to take some of the pressure off people who find themselves requiring help with a legal issue. The potential of AI to help with services that could predict the outcome of a case based on certain factors might be of use to someone who is unable to afford or secure traditional legal services.

In a similar vein, Professor Regina Rini argued for education and awareness as critical to addressing the challenges presented by AI. Professor Rini reminded the audience of the importance of thinking through the ways in which AI interacts with people, in order to understand the capacity for AI to reflect our own biases back to us, but amplified. Professor Rini urged the audience to remain aware of the fact that machines are running on our own biased data, without the human mechanism to temper the resulting conclusions. For Professor Rini, education and awareness are critical to addressing the issues with AI in a meaningful way.

What does this mean for inclusion and diversity at 91��ɫ?

Ryan Fritsch provided the audience with some examples of the way in which AI is used on campuses: through , , and , to name a few. The next question posed to the panel asked in what ways can AI help or hinder us in achieving our inclusion and diversity goals?

Professor Urner suggested that in asking this question, what we’re really asking about is the fairness of automatic systems. For Professor Urner, the question becomes “how do we force a machine to be fair”? Her answer is that an algorithm for fairness may be impossible.

In response, Essajee proposed ways that humans might audit AI for discriminatory practices. In this, there are at least two ways in which we can look at AI decisions: we either take the advice of machines full-stop, or we supplement our human decision making with AI advice. In terms of auditing, there was no clear consensus who would perform such a task. Do we make programmers responsible for auditing outputs for bias or is this a task for another discipline?

Moving forward, what should we be prioritizing in responding to AI?

Fritsch then asked the panel to share what they perceive as necessary steps for responding to AI in a world increasingly shaped by the use of such technologies.

For Essajee, in order to ensure the responsible use of AI moving forward, we need to have effective systems in place for deciding the readiness of certain types of AI, before they are unleashed. Farrow flagged ideas surrounding the ways in which AI might be written into our notions of procedural fairness, and beyond legal rights, ensuring that institutions are proceeding forward in a human way, even when AI is in use. Professor Urner drove home the message that we must remain focused on developing and instituting interdisciplinary approaches to creating and responding to AI technology. Professor Rini wrapped up by describing how classes on the responsible use of AI are already being offered, such as those at the , and the importance of institutional efforts in educating students on the issues raised throughout the morning’s discussion. On a broader scale, Professor Rini continued, we need to ensure the wider public is aware of the ways in which AI is used, and the concerns associated with such use.

Takeaways

Throughout the morning, two key points continued to be reiterated, providing us with some important takeaways from the discussion.

First, education and awareness will be critical to ensuring the responsible use of AI, now and in the future. This includes the transparency and disclosure necessary to ensure that rule of law principles are respected. Both institutions and individuals have a role in this. Those developing AI technologies must ensure that they are aware of the ethical issues involved and must provide assurance that best practices are in place. Further, as mentioned by Essajee, we need to build strong systems for deciding when certain types of AI technologies are ready for use, and for deciding how the technologies will be managed moving forward. Those employing AI technologies should disclose the use of AI and be transparent in explaining the purpose for its use. Educational institutions must provide the tools necessary to ensure that people understand the ways in which AI impacts their lives.

Further, interdisciplinary approaches to developing, thinking about, and responding to AI will be crucial to ensuring meaningful awareness of the benefits and costs of AI technologies. Technologists must work together with scholars from other disciplines in order to advance conversations around and develop solutions for the ethical and human rights issue raised by certain AI technologies.

Thinking deeply about the issues and concerns with AI is critical in a world shaped by AI technologies. While innovation will push technology ever forward, innovative thinking by scholars in other disciplines will be critical to resolving the human rights issues raised by AI technologies.

Written by Meghan Carlin, a first-year student at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The post Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights at 91��ɫU: A Panel Discussion on Impacts and Opportunities appeared first on IPOsgoode.