Kelly Hyman of The Hyman Law Firm is a top legal analyst, appearing on numerous TV shows including NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC and Fox News.
Less than a year ago, OpenAI introduced a generative AI tool, ChatGPT, and quickly reached 100 million users faster than TikTok or Instagram, which took nine months and two and half years, respectively, to reach the same goal.
For those unclear about its main capabilities, generative AI is an AI-powered large language model that generates human-like text based on context and past conversations. The gist requires inputting a question or prompt into the AI model, which will then automatically provide a reasonably coherent response. It may not always have the right tone or syntax, but it’s close enough for the popularity of these tools to continue to rise.
It’s no surprise that users from all industries are quick to allow an AI chatbot to do the heavy lifting of creating fresh content. Recently, it has been used for everything from writing web copy to crafting poems to drafting legal documents.
Potential Implications Of AI In The Legal Space
The convenience and immediacy of the tool might feel like a welcome relief for lawyers who spend hours putting together briefs or contracts. Having generative AI generate (subjectively) well-written documents in a matter of seconds can be a time saver. However, the problem for lawyers—as with anyone who uses it—is the information may not always be accurate or readable.
Even if technology is making it easier to generate legal documents and possibly even provide solutions to certain client issues, the question is: Should it be used? And if so, to what extent?
OpenAI isn’t the only company debuting this AI software. Google released its own gen AI model, Google Bard, which crawls the web in real time. Microsoft released Bing AI, which is powered by GPT-4, “but the two systems give quite different answers,” according to the Verge.
Meanwhile, the legal world has been introduced to Harvey AI, which uses a similar type of technology designed to support legal work specifically. In addition to pulling general internet data, Harvey AI is further trained to include legal information in its findings, such as case law and reference materials. It can assist with due diligence and regulatory compliance to generate recommendations and predictions based on data.
Since AI tools are generating responses based on the content already available on the internet, where is the room for nuance or context?
On the other hand, the tool could be helpful for less intensive legal work, administrative tasks and legal drafts that can be fact-checked and edited for final review. For some, AI assistance may be convenient, while for others the task of prompting generative AI and fixing the inaccuracies in the results may be as time-consuming as writing a draft.
Recent law graduates entering the legal field are likely more open to this automated way of doing things since the digital world is their standard. Seasoned lawyers who have been practicing for decades, however, may not be as quick to change methods.
Consequences Of Generative AI
Because generative AI is still in its infancy stages, there are still regulations being ironed out regarding the use of the tool. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is investigating OpenAI for possible violations of consumer protection law. It seeks records from the ChatGPT maker regarding the use of personal data.
Many consumers may not fully review the terms and conditions or privacy policy of the tools available. In regard to ChatGPT’s latest release, OpenAI said about the model in its “GPT-4 Technical Report” that it may “produce content that is nonsensical or untruthful in relation to certain sources.”
There’s no doubt technology has transformed the legal world, in most cases for the better, but is being the fastest the most beneficial way to practice law? Thoroughness and accuracy are vital before presenting information to a jury and/or judge.
Of course, there are ramifications of citing false sources in a court of law. Recently, two New York attorneys were sanctioned for citing nonexistent case citations generated by ChatGPT. In situations like this, the use of AI may be more costly than it is worth. Sometimes what’s too good to be true actually is.
As with most things, there seems to be a time and place to incorporate AI into practice, though people should proceed with caution. The proverbial jury is still out on whether this will make life easier for lawyers across the board or end up causing more work in the end. Or maybe where we should be aiming to land is someplace in the compliant middle.
The information provided here is not legal advice and does not purport to be a substitute for advice of counsel on any specific matter. For legal advice, you should consult with an attorney concerning your specific situation.
Forbes Business Council is the foremost growth and networking organization for business owners and leaders. Do I qualify?
Read the full article here