Co-founder of the AI, Tech & Privacy Academy (1,600+ participants), Author of Luiza’s Newsletter (100,000+ subscribers), Mother of 3
Tel Aviv District, Israel
144K עוקבים
מעל 500 קשרים
על אודות
Dr. Luiza Jarovsky is the co-founder of the AI, Tech & Privacy Academy and a leading global expert in AI governance.
Her newsletter, read by over 100,000 subscribers, is a go-to learning resource for professionals who want to stay up to date and advance their expertise in AI policy, ethics, and regulation.
Her signature training program has reached over 1,600 participants, equipping professionals to make AI safer, more ethical, and legally compliant.
Dr. Jarovsky was named a Top Voice in AI by LinkedIn and honored by the President of Israel with the President’s Scholarship for Excellence in Science and Innovation for her Ph.D. research.
She holds a law degree from the University of São Paulo and earned her Master’s and Ph.D. from Tel Aviv University. She speaks English, Portuguese, French, Spanish, Italian, German, and Hebrew and is a proud mother of three.
Relevant links and contact form: www.luizajarovsky.com
מאמרים מאת Luiza
פעילות
144K עוקבים
-
Luiza Jarovsky, PhD פרסם/פרסמה את זהUnpopular opinion: AI companies are pushing society to accept an unacceptable level of risk for a non-essential technology.
-
Luiza Jarovsky, PhD שיתף את זהMaybe Uber should hire these 3,300 people back?
-
Luiza Jarovsky, PhD שיתף את זה🚨 As a lawyer, I feel SO RELIEVED that Trump has finally clarified how liability law applies to AI! The question was "Who should be held accountable when AI agents commit a crime?" Here's what he said:
-
Luiza Jarovsky, PhD שיתף את זה"Super Intelligence" hallucinated the name of the country.
-
Luiza Jarovsky, PhD שיתף את זה🚨 Yesterday, the "White House Accord on Super Intelligence" was signed. What was supposed to be about AI safety and accountability was instead a PROBLEMATIC endorsement of self-regulation. My comments: - The agreement is voluntary and not legally binding. Trump called it “morally binding.” In practice, nothing happens if a company decides not to comply. - The language used is vague, and it is unclear what successful compliance means. Terms like “robust internal controls,” “alignment,” and “operating as intended” are undefined and lack measurable thresholds. Vague agreements are destined to be useless. - An “independent external auditor” is not as independent as it seems. Companies can choose their evaluators; they pay them, and no official body oversees these evaluations. They are incentivized to choose evaluators aligned with their own goals. - An “independent committee of the board of directors” is still a committee within the company, with no real independence from the company’s ideology, plans, and strategy. - No transparency, no public oversight. The document says that auditors will assess controls and board committees will receive reports. What about the public? What if the evaluators and the board disagree? What if there are conflicts of interest or mistakes? We will never know (but we will still be subjected to the harms posed by their reckless practices). - The expression “behaves as intended” is effective when anchored in external standards, concrete goals, and specific outcomes, usually set out by legally binding rules and frameworks. The company will define “intended behavior” as whatever fits its needs. It does not mean that its technology is acceptably safe. - The agreement says that participating companies will meet regularly to “establish standards and best practices.” So companies will define for themselves what counts as AI safety, risk mitigation, and accountability. This is essentially self-regulation, and companies, as private entities created to generate profit, will naturally prioritize their own interests, not the interests of the public. - These companies compete against each other. If a company's evaluator says its AI model is too risky, they will ask for a second or third opinion until they get the desired outcome (releasing the model). They have no incentive to put themselves in a position to suffer economic losses. One way to change this incentive structure is through legally enacted rules that require all companies to comply with the same requirements and standards, with meaningful monetary penalties for noncompliance. - This agreement will not materially change anything. It endorses self-regulatory practices that are vague, not legally binding, and ineffective at meaningfully improving AI safety or holding companies accountable. Incidents such as the OpenAI/Hugging Face hack would still have happened under this accord. 👉 READ my full article (and join my newsletter's 101,200+ subscribers) below.
-
Luiza Jarovsky, PhD שיתף את זה🚨 WHY does every AI agent now have to be fluffy and toy-like, appealing to children? PLEASE STOP. These are risky, privacy-invasive products meant for adults only. Last week it was Meta's Muse; today it's OpenAI's Dots. It would be great if their design and marketing respected that.
-
Luiza Jarovsky, PhD שיתף את זהI thought Frankenstein was a great book, but now I'm disappointed. Mary Shelley could have done better.
-
Luiza Jarovsky, PhD שיתף את זה🚨 BREAKING: Anthropic's IPO prospectus says its AI technology could pose "catastrophic or existential risks to humanity." We're living in the STRANGEST timeline.
-
Luiza Jarovsky, PhD אהבתי את זהLuiza Jarovsky, PhD אהבתי את זהI absolutely loved being in Luiza Jarovsky, PhD AI Governance training, and I'm continuing to make my way through her book list! Right now I'm reading Guiding Human Decisions in the Age of AI by Urs Gasser and Viktor Mayer-Schönberger. So far, so great. It's expressing sentiments I'm already holding: guardrails aren't only rules. They're about how we think through decisions. One line that stood out: “Guardrails often include processes and institutions, mechanisms and tools, even a ‘culture’ or ‘way of thinking.’” With the emphasis on delivery and winning this AI race, we are losing sight of what we really need to be seeing: that this technology requires an evolution in how we think about what we're doing, not simply what we are doing.
ניסיון
חינוך
כבוד ופרסים
-
IAPP Westin Scholar Award
IAPP
Recipient of a IAPP Westin Scholar Award in 2021
-
President's Scholarship for Innovation and Scientific Excellence in 2020 (מלגת נשיא המדינה למצוינות וחדשנות מדעית)
The President's House (בית הנשיא)
Received the President's Scholarship for Innovation and Scientific Excellence in October/2021, a prize awarded by the President of Israel.
שפות
-
German
-
-
Spanish
-
-
French
-
-
Italian
-
-
Portuguese
-
-
English
-
-
Hebrew
-
פרופילים דומים אחרים
גלה פוסטים נוספים
-
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
A cross office team of Greenberg Traurig attorneys represented Carbyne Ltd., an Israeli founded public safety technology company, in its $625 million all cash sale to Axon, a leading U.S. provider of connected public safety solutions. Carbyne develops cloud based emergency communication and data platforms used by first responders across the United States, Mexico, and Israel. This transaction marks a significant milestone for both organizations and reflects the increasing global demand for advanced, cloud native public safety technologies. The deal team was led be Galit Kierkut (Shareholder, #GTNewJersey, Labor & Employment) and Joey Shabot (Shareholder, #GTTelAviv, Corporate and M&A) with support from Justin Hedge (Shareholder, #GTWashingtonDC, Antitrust Litigation & Competition Regulation), August Huelle (Shareholder, #GTNewYork, Tax), and Scott Bakal (Shareholder, #GTMiami, Tax). Read more: https://lnkd.in/ezGkNFX8. #GTDeals #GTNews
4 תגובות -
Mike Faibisch
One pattern I see repeatedly in Israeli tech: Companies articulate a compelling story for why they create value. But the story told by their patents is often different — stopping at component inventions, or diverging from the value narrative entirely. The result isn’t weak IP. It’s IP that doesn’t clearly map to the innovations that enable the company to win.
-
Ariel Dubinsky
The Tel Aviv District Court has ruled: under current Israeli patent law, an “inventor” must be a natural person — not an AI system. This decision aligns with prevailing case law worldwide, but its significance goes beyond international consistency and lies in its practical implications for companies and startups operating in AI-driven R&D environments. AI-assisted inventions are not disqualified per se. However, applicants must demonstrate meaningful human contribution, supported by proper documentation, responsibility, and declarations. In an era where AI is embedded in nearly every stage of innovation, the ruling clarifies how patent development and filing processes should be managed — from the very outset. These points were also discussed in an interview published yesterday in Calcalist. #AI #Patents #IntellectualProperty #Innovation #LegalTech #Startups
8 תגובות -
Gal Ehrlich
Israel’s DABUS decision: Also in Israel AI can’t be an “inventor”. Interesting unique legal arguments made by court. On 31 December 2025, the Tel Aviv District Court affirmed the Israeli Registrar’s refusal to proceed with patent applications that named an AI system (“DABUS”) as the inventor and sought to link ownership of the invention to ownership of the machine. Although “inventor” is not defined in Israel’s Patents Law, the court read the term in its ordinary meaning and statutory context as referring to a human being. The law’s internal references to an inventor’s heirs, the inventor’s ability to demand attribution, and waiver all point to a rights-bearing legal subject—something a machine is not. Because a non-inventor applicant must explain how it became the “owner of the invention” (by law, assignment, or agreement), the filings ran into a structural barrier: a machine has no legal personality and cannot transfer rights by assignment or contract, and purposive interpretation did not justify stretching the framework to treat AI as an inventor. The court also emphasized that whether and how to protect fully autonomous AI-generated inventions is a policy question with broader implications (incentives, disclosure vs. trade secrets, and international harmonization). In the court’s view, that is a legislative choice, not something to be achieved through interpretation of existing patent terms. Comparatively, the outcome aligns Israel with the dominant approach in major jurisdictions such as the UK, US, and the EPO: AI may assist the inventive process, but inventorship remains tied to a natural person. For innovators and counsel, the practical lesson is clear: when AI plays a role, the focus should be on identifying and documenting the human contribution that meets inventorship standards, and framing prosecution strategies accordingly. #Patents #IntellectualProperty #AI #ArtificialIntelligence #PatentLaw #Innovation #IPStrategy #TechLaw #IsraelLaw #DABUS