Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach
To the AI point, I recently met a very high-level lawyer and discussed this directly with them. I assumed, as I think many would, that AI would be great for lawyers for searching previous cases for precedent, but what they find is that if AI doesn't have an answer it just makes one up. And if it does that even once it's a huge problem, because now you'd have people citing law that doesn't actually exist.
So, because of that, they are actually extremely careful and take preventative steps to make sure absolutely zero AI is being used in their work, even for summaries etc..
|
There were a couple of US cases of lawyers making submissions drafted by AI. Needless to say there were phantom cases. She is in trouble.
I have used AI for other things, though. For example, I asked it to make a checklist of a portion of a National Instrument (securities law). It did a great job. I then asked it to compare the checklist to a disclosure document. It did really well, but only about 85%. I did, and always planned, to go through it line by line and did find areas that it was not fully correct. However, all of the time, it saved me converting the text into a table, adding the proper sub-rule numbers, and adding a short section summary, which was immensely valuable.