Professional website of Matthew Lee (Barrister, England & Wales). Ad/Marketing communication not legal advice. No Public/Direct Access. Instructions via clerks see contact details below.
Professional website of Matthew Lee (Barrister, England & Wales). Ad/Marketing communication not legal advice. No Public/Direct Access. Instructions via clerks see contact details below.
Ad/Marketing Communication This legal article/report forms part of my ongoing legal commentary on the use of artificial intelligence within the justice system. It supports my work in teaching, lecturing, and writing about AI and the law and is published to…
Ad/Marketing Communication This legal article/report forms part of my ongoing legal commentary on the use of artificial intelligence within the justice system. It supports my work in teaching, lecturing, and writing about AI and the law and is published to…
“…[An expert’s] resort to AI, Chat-GPT suggests to me that, in the absence of evidence, I ought not infer expertise in radiology in those without qualifications in that discipline.”
It’s unclear how widely AI obfuscation is understood within the legal community, but any system actively learning to cheat is inherently concerning. There are several questions that warrant further exploration and broader debate
“But that does not mean that citing invented judgments is harmless. It causes the Tribunal and HMRC to waste time and public money, and this reduces the resources available to progress the cases of other court users who are waiting for their appeals to be determined. As Judge Kastel said, the practice also "promotes cynicism" about judicial precedents, and this is important, because the use of precedent is "a cornerstone of our legal system" and "an indispensable foundation upon which to decide what is the law and its application to individual cases"
“At the hearing, Mr Latif explained that when HMRC asked him to send a copy of his letter dated 14 May 2021, he copied and pasted the letter into the artificial intelligence system ChatGPT, telling it to make the letter shorter and more formal. He said that the original letter was long winded, and he wanted to make it a more appropriate and relevant communication for HMRC. He said that it was not his intention to cause confusion or fabricate anything, that in his opinion the ChatGPT letter had the same context as his original letter, and that his intention was purely to use technology to help him as he works in IT.”
“…one of the biggest fields of legal activity in years to come is likely to be the claims that will be brought in respect of the negligent or inappropriate use of AI, and also the negligent or inappropriate failure to use AI. Lawyers will, as I have frequently said, be at the forefront of these AI liability disputes…”
“(a) The Applicant's views on methods of search based on artificial intelligence have no reasonable prospect of showing error of law in the s 12 decision, not least because no error of law ground is advanced, but additionally because of the principle summarised by the FTT in Arthur (see above) and in Ryan. (b) In line with Oakley, little weight should be attached to the Applicant's assertions in reliance on responses to "quick requests of AI chatbots": Grounds, p 3.”
“Firstly, we must assess the weight that we give to the ChatGPT evidence. We place little weight upon that evidence because there is no evidence before us as to the sources the AI tool considers when finalising its response nor is the methodology used by the AI tool explained. If comparisons are drawn to expert evidence, an expert would be required to explain their expertise, the sources that they rely upon and the methodology that they applied before weight was given to such expert evidence. In the circumstances we give little weight to the ChatGPT evidence that searches should have been conducted in the form set out within that evidence.”
“… In answer to the question whether the project was an overall advance, Mr Cahill drew a distinction between existing data (e.g. the database of addresses held by Royal Mail) and software/AI "building blocks" (e.g. the Chat GPT translation tool) on the one hand and "doing something on top" (e.g. code to connect the Chat GPT translation tool with data sources), which is the new work done by GOL. Mr Lewis suggested that GOL could do the same thing (using existing blocks and writing code around them). Mr Cahill said that he was not saying that no one else could do what GOL is doing if they knew what to do, but no one had done that…”