Any new technology comes with both advantages and risks. Where AI in financial institutions is concerned many of the methods and skills used to counter the risks develop from already familiar safeguards. No technology should be adopted unless it comes thoroughly tested, everyone understands the outcomes to expect, and systems are constantly monitored to ensure that those outcomes are being delivered. That is not unique to AI, and in many cases will have been standard practice when adopting any new technology in the past. Similarly it should come as little surprise that where training is required it may be needed at all levels within an institution.

It's easy to conceive of there being challenges for those drafting contracts relating to legal'risk' and liability. For example, what about the healthcare organisation that uses AI to analyse huge volumes of patient data (as well as data from other sources), to understand symptoms and provide suggested treatment options? For example, if something using AI'does what it does' and comes out with a new invention… without any human involvement… surely that would make it the legal'inventor'? But under UK patent law, an inventor is defined as a'person'. So how does this work if the inventor is a computer? Furthermore, as things currently stand, if that person discloses their invention to the state, they are given a 20 year'patent bargain' (a monopoly on that invention).