By: Colin M. Black
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), or what we also know as large language models or generative AI, is no longer a futuristic concept. It’s here. This sophisticated technology, capable of producing human-like text with seemingly human-like analysis, is fast becoming a ubiquitous tool in academia and the legal profession. However, GenAI’s capabilities raise a myriad of ethical and practical questions concerning its use.
We shouldn’t fear GenAI. Instead, we should embrace it as a new instrument in our professional toolkit. Consider GenAI like other technological advancements we’ve seen: spell check, grammar check, brief editing applications, and legal research databases like Lexis and Westlaw. These technologies have significantly improved our work product, but they are not without limitations. We’ve all experienced spell-check missing words, grammar-check not catching passive sentences, and Westlaw misinterpreting our prompts.
Similar to these commonplace technologies, GenAI is also prone to errors. Thus, our understanding of it and caution when using it are critical. Even when a GenAI model is trained on an extensive dataset, it could still generate incorrect or contextually inappropriate content due to the limitations of its data or inherent bias.
GenAI is not an end but a means to an end. Its most significant contribution lies in improving efficiency. However, we must remain aware of its limitations. One such limitation is the possibility of bias. Because GenAI models are trained on pre-existing data, there is a risk of inherent bias if the training data itself is skewed. For example, a GenAI model trained predominantly on case law from a particular jurisdiction may not accurately predict or comprehend legal nuances from other jurisdictions. This inherent bias, unintentional as it may be, underscores the need for human oversight and intervention. Thus, GenAI is a tool that augments and refines, not replaces, human intellect, judgment, or creativity.
Despite these limitations, GenAI can still serve as an excellent starting point to help brainstorm ideas, assist with predictive analysis, or generate related concepts. Its value lies in its ability to process and analyze vast amounts of data much faster than a human. GenAI could provide a base from which a legal professional can work. While GenAI can serve as an assistant, the final responsibility and the intellectual heavy lifting must still be shouldered by the human professional.
An over-reliance on GenAI could lure you into dangerous complacency. For example, while GenAI might generate text based on extensive pre-existing knowledge and data, it lacks the subtlety of human understanding of nuances or the ability to interpret the law in complex, unique circumstances. Law is both a science and an art, requiring not just a technical understanding but also an appreciation of social, cultural, and factually specific nuances that GenAI might miss. Hence, the risk of potential social and cultural biases, inaccuracies in legal analysis, or misinterpretation of laws remains.
The most valuable skill you’ll acquire during your time in law school is the ability to think critically. And, no matter how sophisticated GenAI becomes, it cannot teach critical thinking skills. Over-reliance on GenAI for generating legal arguments or conducting research will stifle your own growth and impair critical thinking development. GenAI’s value in legal education and practice should complement, not compromise, the development of your skills.
It is also essential to understand the ethical implications of GenAI. Law is about truth, justice, and professional ethics. Over-reliance on GenAI raises concerns about originality, accuracy, and authenticity. A lawyer’s reputation hinges on their integrity, and maintaining it is paramount. Our professional obligations emphasize a lawyer’s integrity – a quality GenAI cannot replicate.
I urge you to think of GenAI as a tool, not a substitute for your intellect, judgment, and creativity. Use it wisely to assist you in your work, not to replace your critical thinking and human judgment. Artificial intelligence can never replace human intelligence. A tool is only as good as the hand that wields it. Embracing GenAI in the legal profession is about finding a balance: leveraging its power to enhance productivity, while ensuring the human elements of law—critical thinking, empathy, and ethical judgment—remain paramount.