5 Questions: Britt named general counsel of AI association

SUMMARY

• Steve Britt appointed general counsel for the National Artificial Intelligence Association
• NAIA focuses on helping businesses navigate AI and data privacy laws
• Britt holds three certifications from leading AI regulatory organizations worldwide
• He warns fragmented state laws could hinder innovation without a federal AI statute

By Kallie Cox

Steve Britt, managing partner of Britt Law in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, was recently appointed as general counsel for the National Artificial Intelligence Association.

Founded in January, the association’s mission is to “ensure innovation, opportunity, and global leadership for all American businesses involved in developing or using artificial intelligence.” As general counsel, Britt will spearhead the new committee’s legal strategies and policies.

Before joining the association, Britt obtained three certifications from top AI regulatory organizations worldwide. He also previously served as cyber, data privacy and artificial intelligence counsel at Parker Poe, according to NAIA.

He earned his Juris Doctor at West Virginia University.

Q: How did you first become involved with artificial intelligence?

A: I dove into data privacy, got my exams done, probably in 2018, and then started down the road of deep, deep passion about data issues. And when ChatGPT came out, the IAPP (The International Association of Privacy Professionals) developed a whole new certification for artificial intelligence called the AIGP, for Artificial Intelligence Governance Professional. I got that certification last July, and the AIGP completely changed my thinking about data issues. It’s similar to data privacy, but it’s actually quite different. And so, it’s just with one extension of passion about data issues, but mainly just because I think they’re so important.

Q: What would a federal moratorium on AI regulations mean for your organization, and how you work with the legal community?

A: The problem right now with data privacy and artificial intelligence laws and regulations is there’s no federal statute in either of those areas. So, the states all pass their own, and you end up with this Rubik’s Cube of a bunch of different state laws, with different words and different concepts and different priorities. So, it makes it very difficult, and the big concern as to artificial intelligence is that it’ll frustrate the innovation and the progress and the potential benefits of AI with all these different state laws and international laws.

Q: What are some of the top issues NAIA is focusing on right now?

A: A large part of the focus at this level is helping clients to understand what the laws and regs that are in place require and how they implement them in their businesses. It’s really a consulting kind of engagement to help actually map or inventory the data practices of the business and help them understand what laws and regulations they’re triggering and what they need to do to comply with them. And the problem of the lack of a federal statute is you have 24 state laws and now four new state AI laws, so it’s just becoming kind of a nightmare for businesses to figure out how to prepare for it, plan for it and comply with it.

Q: What are some of the things that other attorneys should be keeping in mind as this technology and its regulations continue to develop?

A: Some of the issues that we’ve seen with OpenAI are copyright infringement. Law firms, as it relates to legal research, have been able to kind of avoid those because they’re using major legal data platforms (such as) Bloomberg (and) Westlaw, that solve the concern about infringing. But they certainly need to be very careful about the use of AI and what data goes into an AI model and protecting their client’s data as well from unintended release or disclosure.

Q: What do you think the next five years will hold for AI and the legal community?

A: The legal community knows it needs to implement it, it knows the clients are implementing it, and it’s its own expertise. It’s like when internet law was created. It’s its own expertise. So, I’m not concerned about the legal community being able to navigate the complexity of the laws and regulations for AI or data privacy, for that matter. (But) it’s a new expertise. Clients (and) the forward-thinking law firms are preparing for it, even though the clients are not necessarily calling for it. Yet, the problem of monetizing these issues is, again, the clients are still focused on data breach and ransomware. They know data issues, and they certainly know AI is important. They don’t know what to do about it. So many firms, many companies are just ordering at the policy level that they can’t use AI, and they can’t use chatbots in their organizations. The employees are largely not meeting that requirement. They’re doing what they do, and they’re enjoying what they do, and they find it’s a very helpful tool. And in fact, it is. So, I think law firms will do fine with implementation of it as laws and regs ultimately get passed and clients begin to distinguish and understand they need to implement AI for purposes of their own efficiencies and productivity.

EXTERNAL LINKS

• International Association of Privacy Professionals
• National Artificial Intelligence Association