the legal industry has been snail paced as always to react, but this stuff is pretty incredible, I've tried using it to find loopholes/vagueness/ambiguity in contracts, draft boilerplate clauses, proofreadings, and a ton of other stuff, its not perfect, but its shockingly good
how long before law firm jobs are under threat? what impact will it have on litigation?
Further, law school projects, assignments are effectively dead. From what i understand, this can also paraphrase content, effectively running circles around turnitin. Law schools need to adapt or be obsolete?
Great topic - was surprised there was not a post on this yet!
LI's 2 cents. Be afraid. Be very afraid. But that goes for nearly all creative / intellectual professions done with a computer nowadays, including copywriting, translation, 2d and 3d graphics and even computer coding, many parts of which could in some years time be largely automated by this kind of technology.
But, importantly for legal:
1. It's not quite there yet both in terms of quality and reliability (but it probably will get there at some point in the coming years).
2. There will still be scope for human supervision and checking, particularly for high-value legal issues, but there might not be as much need for as much human and junior time.
3. Some of it will be positive for newbies, in that it may assist you in doing research and drafting faster by suggesting intelligent things that you can do.
In terms of law school assignments, a good professor can probably still spot a GPT authored paper and it likely won't get a very good grade (for now), though you're right, it might actually be good enough for a passing grade. Also, turnitin or other plagiarism checkers might adjust to also use AI that might be able to determine whether something was written by a GPT-style algorithm or not.
Speaking as a law school faculty who has also tested ChatGPT, purely from an assignment perspective, all the teachers who merely regurgitate the same old standard essay topic list for assignments year after year, and hardly go through the assignments for critical thinking and analysis, are not going to spot the difference. However, anyone who actually takes care to go through every assignment properly, would be able to spot both the lack of factual accuracy as well as the fallacy in terms of logical thinking. Sadly, such people are very much in the minority in Indian law schools, including the top NLUs or private universities.
Good points. Small question: do you think it would take considerably more time for 'good' faculty to catch GPT-style cheating in course work and essays? Not sure how long it takes to currently read and mark an essay with best intentions... But e.g., if you didn't have GPT to worry about, might it take 15-30 minutes to quickly mark an essay, but if considering also GPT, might it take 30-45 minutes because you have to look out for it more carefully, for instance?
Ideally, a faculty should go through each assignment with that level of thoroughness anyway, at least for the purpose of providing feedback to those students who seek it. If someone already does that, then it should not take them any substantial extra effort. Moreover, assignment related vivas and presentation should also help in gauging the students' understanding of the assignment submitted.
Humans are so desperate to kill their own jobs. I have never understood why for the sake of inventing humans constantly invent things that reduce the requirement of manual labour. You're effectively handing over your source of income to machines and robots. Why? Because it makes our lives easier and better? sure but how will access this easier, faster, and better life if you don't have the means ($$) to actually afford it? ChatGPT needs to be shut down or its usage should be restricted. It shouldn't be allowed to eat all of our jobs. Also, what ChatGPT can not do is legal interpretation. Sure, it can research and give you the data but can it interpret terms or clauses of a contract? Can it apply legal mind and incorporate clauses in an agreement? Can it negotiate with the other party? Can it be relied on for confidentiality? There are more reasons why it cannot fully replace lawyers and legal work. However, it would still eat up the work of basic researchers, interns and to some extent junior associates. But all this for what? to make our lives faster? Do we really need it?
It's true that automation and technological advances can lead to job displacement, and this is a concern that needs to be addressed. However, it's important to recognize that these changes also bring many benefits and can lead to the creation of new jobs. For example, automation can improve efficiency, reduce errors, and lower costs, which can ultimately benefit society as a whole.
Furthermore, the impact of technological change on employment is not a new phenomenon. Throughout history, advances in technology have often led to the creation of new industries and jobs, even as they have disrupted others. For example, the development of the printing press in the 15th century led to the creation of new jobs in printing and publishing, even as it made the job of scribe obsolete.
Ultimately, it's important to approach technological change and automation in a way that minimizes the negative impacts on employment while maximizing the benefits for society. This may involve supporting workers who are displaced by automation through retraining and other forms of assistance, as well as regulating the use of automation in certain industries to ensure that it is being implemented in a responsible way.
haan bro tu toh cap marks mein interpret karta haina clauses ko, also in every other practise area? most work is just plain old data entry, what interpretation do you even do? isn't that what a judge or arbitrator does?
"Be afraid, be very afraid" - LOL. It does help in speeding up a lot of mundane tasks for associates like drafting introductory emails, proofreading a medium sized chunk of text, paraphrasing, drafting basic notices etc etc. It can very well help in reviewing and drafting individual clauses of agreements, but I doubt it is capable enough as of yet (because some future software might be) to hold context for even a 20 to 30+ page long document.
LL should be afraid instead since we can now, using ChatGPT, build websites/applications (within a matter of days!) which generate instant news articles by using very trivial sources of information. Check out 'GPT Times' - https://the-gpt-times.eriks-studio.repl.co/
Also lets see what ChatGPT has to say for the above comment. Below is the response generated by ChatGPT for the above comment:
"Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the potential impact of ChatGPT and other legal AI technologies. You are correct that these technologies are not yet fully reliable or of high enough quality to completely replace human legal professionals. However, it is possible that they may eventually play a larger role in the field, particularly in areas such as research and drafting.
It is important to keep in mind that while legal AI technologies may be able to assist with certain tasks, they are not currently capable of replacing the expertise and judgment of human legal professionals. High-value legal issues will likely still require human supervision and checking, and it is unlikely that these technologies will completely eliminate the need for human labor in the field.
As you mentioned, it is also worth considering the possibility that plagiarism detection technologies may evolve to detect papers or documents written with the assistance of AI algorithms. It is always important to ensure that any work produced is original and properly cited.
Overall, the use of legal AI technologies is an interesting and rapidly-evolving area, and it will be interesting to see how they are adopted and utilized in the coming years." As expected - a very basic response.
I'm someone from a 'tier 1' NLU. I have personally (and know folks who've) used GPT3 and ChatGPT for law school assignments. Not all the 3000-5000 words, but sufficient faff fodder for a decent grade. The plagiarism software was ineffective.
ChatGPT is really impressive. During a recent internship, I worked on a certain task related to CA, 2013 and the relevant Rules. I spent 2-3 days skimming through multiple case laws and commentaries to find the interpretation of a certain phrase.
After submitting my note, I posed the question to ChatGPT just out of curiosity. Surprisingly, it gave me the correct and summarised position in just 2 paragraphs!!!!! I couldn’t imagine how impressed the associates would’ve been if I had told them this answer in just a few hours, along with some cases.
Needless to say, I absolutely abused ChatGPT while making my assignment lol. Just threw an article in the chat and it paraphrased the entire thing for me. Added a few citations after that and boom, mission accomplished in just 30 mins xD
I’ve noticed that ChatGPT isn’t that accurate when it comes to technical or skill based stuff like specific Python codes, or even competition level algebra involving quadratic equations, inequalities etc.
But for the legal “research” related tasks, where little application of human acumen is required, it does wonders with the amount of data it has gathered from all over the internet.
I'm guessing transactions jobs will practically be finished in the coming years, though I still think litigation requires a bit of human judgment and strategy-framing, which bots can't do yet. I still don't think there's anything to be frightened about. Technology has always progressed, it's not like people have been put out of jobs and when technology gets smarter, so do people. Communicating with robots, desigining and programming them, refining and editing their outputs still require human intervention. I'd imagine legal researchers from decades ago being equally worried about computers and online research engines coming up and making their roles of flipping through pages and searching for judgments less significant.
This doesn't account for negotiations, commercial considerations, diligence, risk matrix review, and various other factors that go into being a transactions attorney. Software that spits out SPA/SHA isn't new, we've had that mumbo jumbo for a while. ChatGPT is fantastic for elementary drafting, but it will not replace even the most paper-pushy of lawyers anytime soon.
By what it can already do, it is not inconceivable that in negotiations in the coming years, at least on US law agreements or other more standardised types of deals (especially in some finance fields governed by standard contracts), a future LawChatGPT could do things like this:
"LawChatGPT, write me a draft seller-friendly response to this email from the Buyer on this SPA's warranties".
You're right, you'll still need a lawyer to look at it before it goes out and there'll be scope for top lawyers to negotiate that extra bit. Question would be whether that kind of gain in efficiency would reduce billings because GPT has written 90% of your draft in 2 seconds, or whether lawyers will find new revenue streams or billing models to compensate.
Lets see what ChatGPT has to say with respect to OP's comment:
"Thank you for sharing your experience with ChatGPT and its capabilities in the legal field. It is no surprise that the legal industry has been slow to adapt to new technologies, but it is clear that AI like ChatGPT has the potential to significantly impact and improve various aspects of legal work.
As for the potential threat to law firm jobs, it is important to note that legal AI is still in its early stages and is not yet able to fully replace the expertise and judgment of human attorneys. However, it can certainly assist attorneys in their tasks and potentially reduce the need for certain roles, such as document review or contract drafting. It is important for law firms and attorneys to stay up to date on the latest legal AI developments and consider how they can incorporate it into their work in a way that complements and enhances their skills and expertise.
As for the impact on litigation, legal AI has the potential to streamline and speed up certain aspects of the litigation process, such as document review and analysis. However, it is unlikely to fully replace the role of human attorneys in the courtroom or in negotiations.
Finally, regarding the impact on law school assignments and projects, it is important for law schools to adapt and incorporate the study of legal AI into their curricula in order to prepare students for the changing legal landscape. While AI may be able to assist with certain tasks, it cannot fully replace the need for a strong foundation in the law and the critical thinking and problem-solving skills that law school provides."
My take is that, instead of helping in de-jargonising legal documents/opinions/emails etc, it will help professional bullshitters (which is 90% of law firm associates) in bullshitting even more and well lol make things a bit smooth and fun for the associates, but replacing lawyers - I don't thing that's happening anytime soon. Maybe in the next 10-15 years if institutional level changes take place like judiciary using AI to hear preliminary stages of cases, AI being used for evidence, or governments using AI to draft laws etc etc, then some what of things that currently A0's do in the first two years maybe automated. One such example of a task that may be automated which comes to my mind is of an A0 who was in cap marks and was assigned the task to 'open' more than 1000+ files that had been dumped by the client and the task was to simply 'rename each file' with the name of the document and re-arrange/organise all the files in a separate folder so that it is easy to browse through the documents.
Essentially, its a yay! for bullshitters in the short-term. However in the long-term people with high level of subject-matter expertise should be more employable by law firms.
how long before law firm jobs are under threat? what impact will it have on litigation?
Further, law school projects, assignments are effectively dead. From what i understand, this can also paraphrase content, effectively running circles around turnitin. Law schools need to adapt or be obsolete?
LI's 2 cents. Be afraid. Be very afraid. But that goes for nearly all creative / intellectual professions done with a computer nowadays, including copywriting, translation, 2d and 3d graphics and even computer coding, many parts of which could in some years time be largely automated by this kind of technology.
But, importantly for legal:
1. It's not quite there yet both in terms of quality and reliability (but it probably will get there at some point in the coming years).
2. There will still be scope for human supervision and checking, particularly for high-value legal issues, but there might not be as much need for as much human and junior time.
3. Some of it will be positive for newbies, in that it may assist you in doing research and drafting faster by suggesting intelligent things that you can do.
In terms of law school assignments, a good professor can probably still spot a GPT authored paper and it likely won't get a very good grade (for now), though you're right, it might actually be good enough for a passing grade. Also, turnitin or other plagiarism checkers might adjust to also use AI that might be able to determine whether something was written by a GPT-style algorithm or not.
Would love to hear reader views.
Also, what ChatGPT can not do is legal interpretation. Sure, it can research and give you the data but can it interpret terms or clauses of a contract? Can it apply legal mind and incorporate clauses in an agreement? Can it negotiate with the other party? Can it be relied on for confidentiality? There are more reasons why it cannot fully replace lawyers and legal work. However, it would still eat up the work of basic researchers, interns and to some extent junior associates. But all this for what? to make our lives faster? Do we really need it?
Furthermore, the impact of technological change on employment is not a new phenomenon. Throughout history, advances in technology have often led to the creation of new industries and jobs, even as they have disrupted others. For example, the development of the printing press in the 15th century led to the creation of new jobs in printing and publishing, even as it made the job of scribe obsolete.
Ultimately, it's important to approach technological change and automation in a way that minimizes the negative impacts on employment while maximizing the benefits for society. This may involve supporting workers who are displaced by automation through retraining and other forms of assistance, as well as regulating the use of automation in certain industries to ensure that it is being implemented in a responsible way.
LL should be afraid instead since we can now, using ChatGPT, build websites/applications (within a matter of days!) which generate instant news articles by using very trivial sources of information. Check out 'GPT Times' - https://the-gpt-times.eriks-studio.repl.co/
An example of a news article generated by it - https://the-gpt-times.eriks-studio.repl.co/article/1601348697370947584
"Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the potential impact of ChatGPT and other legal AI technologies. You are correct that these technologies are not yet fully reliable or of high enough quality to completely replace human legal professionals. However, it is possible that they may eventually play a larger role in the field, particularly in areas such as research and drafting.
It is important to keep in mind that while legal AI technologies may be able to assist with certain tasks, they are not currently capable of replacing the expertise and judgment of human legal professionals. High-value legal issues will likely still require human supervision and checking, and it is unlikely that these technologies will completely eliminate the need for human labor in the field.
As you mentioned, it is also worth considering the possibility that plagiarism detection technologies may evolve to detect papers or documents written with the assistance of AI algorithms. It is always important to ensure that any work produced is original and properly cited.
Overall, the use of legal AI technologies is an interesting and rapidly-evolving area, and it will be interesting to see how they are adopted and utilized in the coming years." As expected - a very basic response.
After submitting my note, I posed the question to ChatGPT just out of curiosity. Surprisingly, it gave me the correct and summarised position in just 2 paragraphs!!!!! I couldn’t imagine how impressed the associates would’ve been if I had told them this answer in just a few hours, along with some cases.
Needless to say, I absolutely abused ChatGPT while making my assignment lol. Just threw an article in the chat and it paraphrased the entire thing for me. Added a few citations after that and boom, mission accomplished in just 30 mins xD
I’ve noticed that ChatGPT isn’t that accurate when it comes to technical or skill based stuff like specific Python codes, or even competition level algebra involving quadratic equations, inequalities etc.
But for the legal “research” related tasks, where little application of human acumen is required, it does wonders with the amount of data it has gathered from all over the internet.
"LawChatGPT, write me a draft seller-friendly response to this email from the Buyer on this SPA's warranties".
You're right, you'll still need a lawyer to look at it before it goes out and there'll be scope for top lawyers to negotiate that extra bit. Question would be whether that kind of gain in efficiency would reduce billings because GPT has written 90% of your draft in 2 seconds, or whether lawyers will find new revenue streams or billing models to compensate.
"Thank you for sharing your experience with ChatGPT and its capabilities in the legal field. It is no surprise that the legal industry has been slow to adapt to new technologies, but it is clear that AI like ChatGPT has the potential to significantly impact and improve various aspects of legal work.
As for the potential threat to law firm jobs, it is important to note that legal AI is still in its early stages and is not yet able to fully replace the expertise and judgment of human attorneys. However, it can certainly assist attorneys in their tasks and potentially reduce the need for certain roles, such as document review or contract drafting. It is important for law firms and attorneys to stay up to date on the latest legal AI developments and consider how they can incorporate it into their work in a way that complements and enhances their skills and expertise.
As for the impact on litigation, legal AI has the potential to streamline and speed up certain aspects of the litigation process, such as document review and analysis. However, it is unlikely to fully replace the role of human attorneys in the courtroom or in negotiations.
Finally, regarding the impact on law school assignments and projects, it is important for law schools to adapt and incorporate the study of legal AI into their curricula in order to prepare students for the changing legal landscape. While AI may be able to assist with certain tasks, it cannot fully replace the need for a strong foundation in the law and the critical thinking and problem-solving skills that law school provides."
Essentially, its a yay! for bullshitters in the short-term. However in the long-term people with high level of subject-matter expertise should be more employable by law firms.