Evaluating AI for Law: Bridging the Gap with Open-Source Solutions
2404.12349
0
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.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper discusses the challenges of using AI for legal applications and proposes open-source solutions to bridge the gap.
- It examines the current limitations of AI in the legal domain and explores how open-source software and datasets can help address these limitations.
- The paper covers key topics such as datasets, AI architectures, and opportunities for open-source legal language modeling and case analysis.
Plain English Explanation
The paper discusses the challenges of using artificial intelligence (AI) in the legal field. While AI has made significant advancements in many areas, it is not yet ready to be fully deployed in the complex and nuanced world of law.
The authors explain that the legal domain has unique requirements, such as the need for interpretable and trustworthy decisions, as well as the ability to reason about ambiguous and context-dependent information. Current AI systems often struggle with these challenges, leading to concerns about their reliability and fairness when applied to legal tasks.
To address these limitations, the paper proposes leveraging open-source solutions. Open-source AI-based software engineering tools and open-source legal language models can provide a more transparent and customizable approach to developing AI systems for legal applications. These open-source resources can also facilitate collaborative efforts to construct knowledge graphs from judicial cases and enable AI-driven statutory reasoning.
By leveraging open-source solutions, the authors believe the legal community can bridge the gap between the current limitations of AI and the unique requirements of the legal domain. This approach can lead to more trustworthy and transparent AI systems that can assist legal professionals in their work.
Technical Explanation
The paper begins by highlighting the current limitations of AI in the legal domain. The authors explain that while AI has shown promising results in various applications, it is not yet ready to be widely deployed in the legal field. This is due to the unique challenges posed by the legal domain, such as the need for interpretable and trustworthy decisions, as well as the ability to reason about ambiguous and context-dependent information.
To address these challenges, the paper proposes leveraging open-source solutions. The authors discuss the potential of open-source AI-based software engineering tools and open-source legal language models to provide a more transparent and customizable approach to developing AI systems for legal applications.
The paper also explores the opportunities presented by constructing knowledge graphs from judicial cases and enabling AI-driven statutory reasoning using open-source resources. These approaches can help address the unique requirements of the legal domain and foster more trustworthy and transparent AI systems.
Critical Analysis
The paper raises valid concerns about the current limitations of AI in the legal domain. The authors acknowledge that while AI has made significant advancements in various fields, it is not yet ready to be fully deployed in the complex and nuanced world of law. The need for interpretable and trustworthy decisions, as well as the ability to reason about ambiguous and context-dependent information, presents significant challenges for existing AI systems.
The authors' proposal to leverage open-source solutions is a promising approach to addressing these limitations. By utilizing open-source AI-based software engineering tools and open-source legal language models, the legal community can gain more transparency and customization options when developing AI systems for legal applications.
However, the paper could have delved deeper into the potential challenges and limitations of this open-source approach. For example, the authors could have discussed the difficulties in maintaining and updating open-source resources, the need for robust governance and quality control mechanisms, and the potential challenges in scaling these solutions to meet the demands of the legal industry.
Additionally, the paper could have explored the role of AI-based tutoring systems for software engineering education and how they could contribute to the development of more capable and trustworthy AI systems for legal applications.
Conclusion
This paper presents a compelling case for the need to address the current limitations of AI in the legal domain. By leveraging open-source solutions, including open-source AI-based software engineering tools, open-source legal language models, and approaches for constructing knowledge graphs from judicial cases and enabling AI-driven statutory reasoning, the legal community can work towards developing more trustworthy and transparent AI systems. This collaborative effort has the potential to bridge the gap between the current limitations of AI and the unique requirements of the legal domain, ultimately enhancing the role of technology in the practice of law.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
š
AI-Driven Statutory Reasoning via Software Engineering Methods
Rohan Padhye
0
0
The recent proliferation of generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies such as pre-trained large language models (LLMs) has opened up new frontiers in computational law. An exciting area of development is the use of AI to automate the deductive rule-based reasoning inherent in statutory and contract law. This paper argues that such automated deductive legal reasoning can now be viewed from the lens of software engineering, treating LLMs as interpreters of natural-language programs with natural-language inputs. We show how it is possible to apply principled software engineering techniques to enhance AI-driven legal reasoning of complex statutes and to unlock new applications in automated meta-reasoning such as mutation-guided example generation and metamorphic property-based testing.
7/1/2024
š¬
LawGPT: A Chinese Legal Knowledge-Enhanced Large Language Model
Zhi Zhou, Jiang-Xin Shi, Peng-Xiao Song, Xiao-Wen Yang, Yi-Xuan Jin, Lan-Zhe Guo, Yu-Feng Li
0
0
Large language models (LLMs), including both proprietary and open-source models, have showcased remarkable capabilities in addressing a wide range of downstream tasks. Nonetheless, when it comes to practical Chinese legal tasks, these models fail to meet the actual requirements. Proprietary models do not ensure data privacy for sensitive legal cases, while open-source models demonstrate unsatisfactory performance due to their lack of legal knowledge. To address this problem, we introduce LawGPT, the first open-source model specifically designed for Chinese legal applications. LawGPT comprises two key components: legal-oriented pre-training and legal supervised fine-tuning. Specifically, we employ large-scale Chinese legal documents for legal-oriented pre-training to incorporate legal domain knowledge. To further improve the model's performance on downstream legal tasks, we create a knowledge-driven instruction dataset for legal supervised fine-tuning. Our experimental results demonstrate that LawGPT outperforms the open-source LLaMA 7B model. Our code and resources are publicly available at https://github.com/pengxiao-song/LaWGPT and have received 5.7K stars on GitHub.
6/10/2024
š¤
Generative AI Search Engines as Arbiters of Public Knowledge: An Audit of Bias and Authority
Alice Li, Luanne Sinnamon
0
0
This paper reports on an audit study of generative AI systems (ChatGPT, Bing Chat, and Perplexity) which investigates how these new search engines construct responses and establish authority for topics of public importance. We collected system responses using a set of 48 authentic queries for 4 topics over a 7-day period and analyzed the data using sentiment analysis, inductive coding and source classification. Results provide an overview of the nature of system responses across these systems and provide evidence of sentiment bias based on the queries and topics, and commercial and geographic bias in sources. The quality of sources used to support claims is uneven, relying heavily on News and Media, Business and Digital Media websites. Implications for system users emphasize the need to critically examine Generative AI system outputs when making decisions related to public interest and personal well-being.
5/24/2024
š
Towards Supporting Legal Argumentation with NLP: Is More Data Really All You Need?
T. Y. S. S Santosh, Kevin D. Ashley, Katie Atkinson, Matthias Grabmair
0
0
Modeling legal reasoning and argumentation justifying decisions in cases has always been central to AI & Law, yet contemporary developments in legal NLP have increasingly focused on statistically classifying legal conclusions from text. While conceptually simpler, these approaches often fall short in providing usable justifications connecting to appropriate legal concepts. This paper reviews both traditional symbolic works in AI & Law and recent advances in legal NLP, and distills possibilities of integrating expert-informed knowledge to strike a balance between scalability and explanation in symbolic vs. data-driven approaches. We identify open challenges and discuss the potential of modern NLP models and methods that integrate
6/18/2024