Related papers: Evaluating AI for Law: Bridging the Gap with Open-Source Solutions

Evaluating AI for Law: Bridging the Gap with Open-Source Solutions

URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.12349v1
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 17:26:01 GMT
Title: Evaluating AI for Law: Bridging the Gap with Open-Source Solutions
Authors: Rohan Bhambhoria, Samuel Dahan, Jonathan Li, Xiaodan Zhu,
Abstract summary: 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.
Score: 32.550204238857724
License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Abstract: This study evaluates the performance of general-purpose AI, like ChatGPT, in legal question-answering tasks, highlighting significant risks to legal professionals and clients. It suggests leveraging foundational models enhanced by domain-specific knowledge to overcome these issues. The paper advocates for creating open-source legal AI systems to improve accuracy, transparency, and narrative diversity, addressing general AI's shortcomings in legal contexts.

Related papers

Implications of the AI Act for Non-Discrimination Law and Algorithmic Fairness [1.5029560229270191]
The topic of fairness in AI has sparked meaningful discussions in the past years. From a legal perspective, many open questions remain. The AI Act might present a tremendous step towards bridging these two approaches.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-29T09:54:09Z)
Advancing Legal Reasoning: The Integration of AI to Navigate Complexities and Biases in Global Jurisprudence with Semi-Automated Arbitration Processes (SAAPs) [0.0]
This study focuses on the analysis of court judgments spanning five countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Rwanda, Sweden and Hong Kong. By incorporating Advanced Language Models (ALMs) and a newly introduced human-AI collaborative framework, this paper seeks to analyze Grounded Theory-based research design with AI.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-06T16:47:34Z)
Towards Responsible AI in Banking: Addressing Bias for Fair Decision-Making [69.44075077934914]
"Responsible AI" emphasizes the critical nature of addressing biases within the development of a corporate culture. This thesis is structured around three fundamental pillars: understanding bias, mitigating bias, and accounting for bias. In line with open-source principles, we have released Bias On Demand and FairView as accessible Python packages.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-13T14:07:09Z)
Promises and pitfalls of artificial intelligence for legal applications [19.8511844390731]
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.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-10T19:50:37Z)
Report of the 1st Workshop on Generative AI and Law [78.62063815165968]
This report presents the takeaways of the inaugural Workshop on Generative AI and Law (GenLaw) A cross-disciplinary group of practitioners and scholars from computer science and law convened to discuss the technical, doctrinal, and policy challenges presented by law for Generative AI.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-11T04:13:37Z)
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)
Decision Rule Elicitation for Domain Adaptation [93.02675868486932]
Human-in-the-loop machine learning is widely used in artificial intelligence (AI) to elicit labels from experts. In this work, we allow experts to additionally produce decision rules describing their decision-making. We show that decision rule elicitation improves domain adaptation of the algorithm and helps to propagate expert's knowledge to the AI model.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-02-23T08:07:22Z)
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.