There is a lot of talk these days about how the artificial intelligence (AI) boom will revolutionize the economy. The electric power sector is no exception. All over the country, tech companies are developing hyperscale data centers to provide the computing power necessary for cloud-based services, large language model training, and other AI applications. These
Bexis recently attended the Spring Conference of the Product Liability Advisory Council (“PLAC”). PLAC meetings are usually good for new blogpost ideas, and this one was no exception. Today’s idea comes from an unusual source, though – the final day’s ethics presentation. That presentation was about artificial intelligence, mostly in the mass tort context. One
For years, the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 48 and the Production Tax Credit (PTC) under Section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code provided the federal tax incentive foundation for biogas electricity projects.
Today’s guest post is another tech-related discussion from Reed Smith‘s Jamie Lanphear. Given the increasing ubiquity of artificial intelligence (“AI”) in legal practice, the notion of AI prompts and output becoming yet another front in the never-ending ediscovery wars is concerning. Here are Jamie’s latest thoughts on the latest pertinent caselaw in this
The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) has determined that large computational loads connecting to the Bulk‑Power System (BPS) at an unprecedented speed and scale are reshaping demand profiles and exposing reliability gaps in both planning and operations.
We typed the following question into a simple AI prompt: “What is the difference between admonish and deter?” The response started with “The primary difference between admonish and deter lies in their intent and timing: admonishing is form of active, often verbal correction or warning regarding past or present behavior, while deterring is an act
Artificial intelligence isn’t going anywhere. Experts use it. Opposing counsel use it. Clients use it – and want their lawyers to use it too. It is becoming an increasingly standard legal research, drafting, and case strategy tool. But as a couple of our recent posts (here and here) have pointed out—AI is far
While much attention has focused on the electricity demands of AI-driven data centers, a quieter crisis is emerging around water consumption. Modern hyperscale data centers can consume between one and five million gallons of water daily for cooling systems, with some facilities using significantly more during peak operations. As tech companies announce plans to build
Most of the public conversation about AI still focuses on the technology itself. Is it safe? Is it biased? Which company is building the most powerful model?
Those questions matter. But when the government uses AI to help make decisions that shape people’s lives, a different question comes into view. This strikes me as more
Today’s guest post is by Reed Smith‘s Jamie Lanphear. She has long been interested in tech issues, and particularly in how they might intersect with product liability. This post examines product liability implications of using artificial intelligence (“AI”) for medical purposes. It’s a fascinating subject, and as always our guest posters deserve 100%