1legaleagles
Greetings - and apologies for not making any new posts for a while.
But its just been hectic - doing that "w" word we are not allowed to talk about or promote the subject of our endeavors!
As soon as the projects are packed away and there's time to breathe we'll be back. With lots of information to share.
But if you are passing by - why don't you start a discussion here about a legal issue?
Oh heck - why don't we throw something on the table and see what happens.
What are your thoughts about the lawyers using AI to generate documents? What are your experiences - good and/or bad?
But its just been hectic - doing that "w" word we are not allowed to talk about or promote the subject of our endeavors!
As soon as the projects are packed away and there's time to breathe we'll be back. With lots of information to share.
But if you are passing by - why don't you start a discussion here about a legal issue?
Oh heck - why don't we throw something on the table and see what happens.
What are your thoughts about the lawyers using AI to generate documents? What are your experiences - good and/or bad?
2GraceCollection
I think using AI to generate anything other than ideas is asking for trouble. Errors in grammar, formatting, not to mention facts... AI, or should I say Machine Learning (it is not true artificial intelligence), is not fact-checking itself with law books, it is learning from the information it is being fed, most of which is internet discussion. If you don't trust any Jo Shmo on the internet to draft your legal documents, you certainly shouldn't trust so-called 'AI' to do so either.
Using 'AI' to draft an email, rephrase a human-written document into common parlance, or generate an idea for your next legal thriller is one thing, but I don't trust it much more than that.
Using 'AI' to draft an email, rephrase a human-written document into common parlance, or generate an idea for your next legal thriller is one thing, but I don't trust it much more than that.
3DanCogan
>2 GraceCollection: AI can be used for proofreading. I used ChatGPT 1o to proofread the chapters of my new legal thriller and it did a great job. But there was a two-day period when my access to 1o was blocked (because of usage limits) so I used the inferior 4o model. The result was that some typos got through in the late middle of the book that I didn't notice until after publication.
4ejstell
I joined LibraryThing over a year ago. I was only prompted to post something now when I came across your "Home alone" discussion in October and saw Haydninvienna's post. What would he say to AI for legislative drafting? I am also a legislative drafter, and I know the potential for AI applications has been talked about for some time.
One thing is accuracy. It is hard work for humans. I'm sure AI could assist, and we obviously use simple automated processes like spellchecking. But even with that you have to be very careful not to agree with the suggestions too quickly.
I think the main point is that legal writing is largely reflecting inputs from negotiation between people. Parties to a contract need to decide what they are prepared to sign up to and agree terms (rules) that, so far as they can see, will produce outcomes they are content with in whatever circumstances they can foresee. Legislation is the same - negotiation between people that ends up with a legal text that should give the outcomes intended. In both cases, the negotiation is going on and the details of the policy are being worked out through the drafting process. AI assistance in modelling outcomes or identifying rules that would lead to outcomes might be another matter.
The possible outcomes are likely to include a further process of decision-making involving interpretation of the text and application to whatever circumstances actually arise (i.e. courts, arbitrators, etc). That probably also has to be a matter of negotiation between people. Though AI adjudication must be an option in cases where we are prepared to sign up to it, individually or collectively.
Has anyone read "Is the Law Computable: Critical Perspectives on Law and Artificial Intelligence", edited by Simon Deakin and Christopher Markou, published by Hart, 2020? It's on my shelves waiting to be read. Here are a couple of quotes from dipping into it:
"Law is not computable in any final sense, because due to its text-driven multi-interpretability it can be computed in different ways and these different ways will make a difference for those subject to law. In a constitutional democracy such design choices belong to 'the people' and to the courts, not to arbitrary software developers in big tech or big law." (Mireille Hildebrandt, p.83)
"Plato famously remarked that one of the penalties of refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. An algorithmic governmentality would certainly be inferior to human politics. It must be resisted." (John Morison, p.105).
One thing is accuracy. It is hard work for humans. I'm sure AI could assist, and we obviously use simple automated processes like spellchecking. But even with that you have to be very careful not to agree with the suggestions too quickly.
I think the main point is that legal writing is largely reflecting inputs from negotiation between people. Parties to a contract need to decide what they are prepared to sign up to and agree terms (rules) that, so far as they can see, will produce outcomes they are content with in whatever circumstances they can foresee. Legislation is the same - negotiation between people that ends up with a legal text that should give the outcomes intended. In both cases, the negotiation is going on and the details of the policy are being worked out through the drafting process. AI assistance in modelling outcomes or identifying rules that would lead to outcomes might be another matter.
The possible outcomes are likely to include a further process of decision-making involving interpretation of the text and application to whatever circumstances actually arise (i.e. courts, arbitrators, etc). That probably also has to be a matter of negotiation between people. Though AI adjudication must be an option in cases where we are prepared to sign up to it, individually or collectively.
Has anyone read "Is the Law Computable: Critical Perspectives on Law and Artificial Intelligence", edited by Simon Deakin and Christopher Markou, published by Hart, 2020? It's on my shelves waiting to be read. Here are a couple of quotes from dipping into it:
"Law is not computable in any final sense, because due to its text-driven multi-interpretability it can be computed in different ways and these different ways will make a difference for those subject to law. In a constitutional democracy such design choices belong to 'the people' and to the courts, not to arbitrary software developers in big tech or big law." (Mireille Hildebrandt, p.83)
"Plato famously remarked that one of the penalties of refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. An algorithmic governmentality would certainly be inferior to human politics. It must be resisted." (John Morison, p.105).
5legaleagles
Greetings to all who have been posting and chatting about AI while the legaleagles have been on walkabout!
Well we're back and will have a decent look at the posts and add comments over the weekend.
Here's a hint : a judge in South Africa recently took some lawyers to task for using AI to generate their heads of argument. Unfortunately AI hallucinated a whole truck load of garbage! But we will do a proper case report and post here.
See y'all soon.
Well we're back and will have a decent look at the posts and add comments over the weekend.
Here's a hint : a judge in South Africa recently took some lawyers to task for using AI to generate their heads of argument. Unfortunately AI hallucinated a whole truck load of garbage! But we will do a proper case report and post here.
See y'all soon.
