Oct 1, 2026 · 53 min · 10 segments
Daniel Solove (GW Law) discusses how to approach teaching AI with an all-star group of leading professors in the field: Alicia Solow-Niederman (GW Law)Paul Ohm (Georgetown Law)Margot Kaminski…
Daniel SoloveHost
Alicia Solow-NiedermanGuestRyan CaloGuestMargo KaminskiGuest
Margaret HuGuest
How do you approach it? What is your general philosophy about the overarching approach to a course in this area? And I guess I'll start with you, Margaret, since your book is out and you've been teaching it and you have a whole book that kind of lays out an approach and an order.
So, like I said, when Aspen first approached me back in 2016, 2017, I said, it's a hard no. There's no way I'm going to do this because there's no consensus in the field and it's just too premature for a casebook or a textbook.
And they said, well, we'll give you up to 10 years to write it because it takes, in our mind, five to 10 years.
And that really inspired me to look at it as analogous to the way that I teach constitutional law, which is that I try to think about first principles.
I really appreciate, Dan, that you see that there's a lot of overlap, like you said, between AI and data privacy.
And as that core fundamental right to anchor a method for teaching AI and the law, I couldn't agree more.
And so what I tried to do was then take over the last 10 years an approach, like I said, that looks to the historical trajectory of AI law and policy.
And I say in my first chapter that it is a history book, that what I'm trying to do is take snapshots from the front lines of the field and then allow for the debate and discourse and the type of dialogue necessary to interrogate whether or not we're getting it right or getting it wrong and trying to create the correct scaffolding for AI governance in this AI revolution.
And to the extent that we're getting it wrong, why? And to the extent that we're getting it right, why? So this book, it's 1,100 pages.
But what I try to do is curate primary sources, so cases, statutes, regulations, executive orders, government reports.
I try to take snapshots and allow for each one of them to tell their own story.
But what I explained to Aspen when they first approached me, it was that I saw it as a three book series.
So I said the first book is going to be what I consider to be the curated primary sources.
And then I said that the second book, which just came out, this is the statutory supplement.
This, I wanted it to be even more extensive in the way it exposed people to the statutes and the regulations.
In the meantime, they asked me to do an abbreviated version, which came out this summer.
So this is a soft cover version of the larger book, but this is introduction to AI law and policy because of the interdisciplinary method that I used to teach this topic because of the interest by those in other fields that did not need a 1,100-page treatment of it.
How do you approach it? What is your general philosophy about the overarching approach to a course in this area? And I guess I'll start with you, Margaret, since your book is out and you've been teaching it and you have a whole book that kind of lays out an approach and an order.
So, like I said, when Aspen first approached me back in 2016, 2017, I said, it's a hard no. There's no way I'm going to do this because there's no consensus in the field and it's just too premature for a casebook or a textbook.
And they said, well, we'll give you up to 10 years to write it because it takes, in our mind, five to 10 years.
And that really inspired me to look at it as analogous to the way that I teach constitutional law, which is that I try to think about first principles.
I really appreciate, Dan, that you see that there's a lot of overlap, like you said, between AI and data privacy.
And as that core fundamental right to anchor a method for teaching AI and the law, I couldn't agree more.
And so what I tried to do was then take over the last 10 years an approach, like I said, that looks to the historical trajectory of AI law and policy.
And I say in my first chapter that it is a history book, that what I'm trying to do is take snapshots from the front lines of the field and then allow for the debate and discourse and the type of dialogue necessary to interrogate whether or not we're getting it right or getting it wrong and trying to create the correct scaffolding for AI governance in this AI revolution.
And to the extent that we're getting it wrong, why? And to the extent that we're getting it right, why? So this book, it's 1,100 pages.
But what I try to do is curate primary sources, so cases, statutes, regulations, executive orders, government reports.
I try to take snapshots and allow for each one of them to tell their own story.
But what I explained to Aspen when they first approached me, it was that I saw it as a three book series.
So I said the first book is going to be what I consider to be the curated primary sources.
And then I said that the second book, which just came out, this is the statutory supplement.
This, I wanted it to be even more extensive in the way it exposed people to the statutes and the regulations.
In the meantime, they asked me to do an abbreviated version, which came out this summer.
So this is a soft cover version of the larger book, but this is introduction to AI law and policy because of the interdisciplinary method that I used to teach this topic because of the interest by those in other fields that did not need a 1,100-page treatment of it.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.