Promises and pitfalls of artificial intelligence for legal applications

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.01656v1
• Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 19:50:37 GMT
• Title: Promises and pitfalls of artificial intelligence for legal applications
• Authors: Sayash Kapoor, Peter Henderson, Arvind Narayanan
• Abstract summary: We argue that this claim is not supported by the current evidence. We dive into AI's increasingly prevalent roles in three types of legal tasks. We make recommendations for better evaluation and deployment of AI in legal contexts.
• Score: 19.8511844390731
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Is AI set to redefine the legal profession? We argue that this claim is not supported by the current evidence. We dive into AI's increasingly prevalent roles in three types of legal tasks: information processing; tasks involving creativity, reasoning, or judgment; and predictions about the future. We find that the ease of evaluating legal applications varies greatly across legal tasks, based on the ease of identifying correct answers and the observability of information relevant to the task at hand. Tasks that would lead to the most significant changes to the legal profession are also the ones most prone to overoptimism about AI capabilities, as they are harder to evaluate. We make recommendations for better evaluation and deployment of AI in legal contexts.

Related papers

• Ethical Challenges of Using Artificial Intelligence in Judiciary [0.0]
  AI has the potential to revolutionize the functioning of the judiciary and the dispensation of justice. Courts around the world have begun embracing AI technology as a means to enhance the administration of justice. However, the use of AI in the judiciary poses a range of ethical challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-27T15:51:56Z)
• Tasks and Roles in Legal AI: Data Curation, Annotation, and Verification [4.099848175176399]
  The application of AI tools to the legal field feels natural. However, legal documents differ from the web-based text that underlies most AI systems. We identify three areas of special relevance to practitioners: data curation, data annotation, and output verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-02T04:34:58Z)
• AnnoCaseLaw: A Richly-Annotated Dataset For Benchmarking Explainable Legal Judgment Prediction [56.797874973414636]
  AnnoCaseLaw is a first-of-its-kind dataset of 471 meticulously annotated U.S. Appeals Court negligence cases. Our dataset lays the groundwork for more human-aligned, explainable Legal Judgment Prediction models. Results demonstrate that LJP remains a formidable task, with application of legal precedent proving particularly difficult.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T19:14:48Z)
• Raising the Stakes: Performance Pressure Improves AI-Assisted Decision Making [57.53469908423318]
  We show the effects of performance pressure on AI advice reliance when laypeople complete a common AI-assisted task. We find that when the stakes are high, people use AI advice more appropriately than when stakes are lower, regardless of the presence of an AI explanation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T22:39:52Z)
• It Cannot Be Right If It Was Written by AI: On Lawyers' Preferences of Documents Perceived as Authored by an LLM vs a Human [0.6827423171182154]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) enable a future in which certain types of legal documents may be generated automatically. This study is the necessary analysis of the ongoing transition towards mature generative AI systems. Our analysis revealed a clear preference for documents perceived as crafted by a human over those believed to be generated by AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-09T12:11:25Z)
• On scalable oversight with weak LLMs judging strong LLMs [67.8628575615614]
  We study debate, where two AI's compete to convince a judge; consultancy, where a single AI tries to convince a judge that asks questions. We use large language models (LLMs) as both AI agents and as stand-ins for human judges, taking the judge models to be weaker than agent models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-05T16:29:15Z)
• Evaluating AI for Law: Bridging the Gap with Open-Source Solutions [32.550204238857724]
  This study evaluates the performance of general-purpose AI, like ChatGPT, in legal question-answering tasks. It suggests leveraging foundational models enhanced by domain-specific knowledge to overcome these issues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-18T17:26:01Z)
• Fairness in Agreement With European Values: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on AI Regulation [61.77881142275982]
  This interdisciplinary position paper considers various concerns surrounding fairness and discrimination in AI, and discusses how AI regulations address them. We first look at AI and fairness through the lenses of law, (AI) industry, sociotechnology, and (moral) philosophy, and present various perspectives. We identify and propose the roles AI Regulation should take to make the endeavor of the AI Act a success in terms of AI fairness concerns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-08T12:32:08Z)
• Metaethical Perspectives on 'Benchmarking' AI Ethics [81.65697003067841]
  Benchmarks are seen as the cornerstone for measuring technical progress in Artificial Intelligence (AI) research. An increasingly prominent research area in AI is ethics, which currently has no set of benchmarks nor commonly accepted way for measuring the 'ethicality' of an AI system. We argue that it makes more sense to talk about 'values' rather than 'ethics' when considering the possible actions of present and future AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-11T14:36:39Z)
• Lawformer: A Pre-trained Language Model for Chinese Legal Long Documents [56.40163943394202]
  We release the Longformer-based pre-trained language model, named as Lawformer, for Chinese legal long documents understanding. We evaluate Lawformer on a variety of LegalAI tasks, including judgment prediction, similar case retrieval, legal reading comprehension, and legal question answering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-09T09:39:25Z)
• AI and Legal Argumentation: Aligning the Autonomous Levels of AI Legal Reasoning [0.0]
  Legal argumentation is a vital cornerstone of justice, underpinning an adversarial form of law. Extensive research has attempted to augment or undertake legal argumentation via the use of computer-based automation including Artificial Intelligence (AI) An innovative meta-approach is proposed to apply the Levels of Autonomy (LoA) of AI Legal Reasoning to the maturation of AI and Legal Argumentation (AILA)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-11T22:05:40Z)
• Authorized and Unauthorized Practices of Law: The Role of Autonomous Levels of AI Legal Reasoning [0.0]
  The legal field has sought to define Authorized Practices of Law (APL) versus Unauthorized Practices of Law (UPL) This paper explores a newly derived instrumental grid depicting the key characteristics underlying APL and UPL as they apply to the AILR autonomous levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-19T18:35:58Z)
• How Does NLP Benefit Legal System: A Summary of Legal Artificial Intelligence [81.04070052740596]
  Legal Artificial Intelligence (LegalAI) focuses on applying the technology of artificial intelligence, especially natural language processing, to benefit tasks in the legal domain. This paper introduces the history, the current state, and the future directions of research in LegalAI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-25T14:45:15Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.