Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • Law is so ripe for replacement by AI. It is entirely based on established written arguments with gray areas, edge cases, linguistic subtleties, etc., being the crux upon which many controversial decisions are drawn. That is, law arguments are based on a mastery of language coupled with knowledge of legal precedent. LLMs are extremely good at linguistic reasoning and can be trained on ever legal case every published.
    by aabajian
  • You seem to have the impression that judges follow the law and see where it leads. In reality, judges tend to decide where they want to go and then figure out how to get there.

    Judging and litigation will be among the last areas to be replaced by so-called AI, if indeed they ever are. People are infinitely complex and tend to disagree with one another.

    by treetalker
  • > AI use is prohibited for any use for any purpose in any exam situation.

    Read literally this bans the use of hearing aids in an oral examination. All the devices on the market today use noise reduction based on neural networks or transformers. Isn't that AI? (The manufacturers' ad copy certainly insists so.) Presumably not what they intended but "AI" is not defined in the document.

    by retrac
  • Why would you consider an amplifier AI?
    by a2ff6eeb0
  • ADA accommodations regularly change what can and cannot be used during an exam. This is not the “gotcha” you think it is. Any lawyer making an argument along these lines probably used AI to pass the bar.

    For example, a blind person could still get an accommodation to use a AI vision tool which reads the exam to them. Or the school could give them a human who reads the exam to them. Either would meet the ADA accommodation requirements, and neither would actually be blocked by UC Berkeley’s new “no AI” rule because the ADA supersedes this “no AI” rule.

    by nerdsniper
  • Most of this policy is unenforceable.
    by ufocia
  • You have to be jacked to use the jackhammer.
    by thatjoeoverthr
  • Banning Ai outside of the classroom is impossible, like telling students they cannot use google for take-home tests. Students will always find ways to circumvent these restrictions.
    by paulpauper
  • I’m curious how they draw the line for spelling and grammar checking. I’ve never seen a law school (or other graduate program) prohibit standard spell-checking or grammar-checking in software.
    by treetalker
  • No judge has ever sanctioned a lawyer because their spell checker wrote a whole hallucinated document for them. So spell checkers are fine. Any other questions?
    by nvme0n1p1
  • Earlier discussion of the University of Chicago Law School's policy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49024980
    by jjwiseman
  • I think I can understand the reasoning behind most of those rules, but the prohibition against AI translation of papers not in English is a bit puzzling. Do they expect students to do their own translations in all cases?
    by drivingmenuts
  • > Future lawyers may need to use artificial intelligence (“AI”) fluently. But the current state of the technology requires that AI use be coupled with the cognitive skills necessary to strategically deploy the technology, to critically assess its work product, and to uphold ethical obligations to clients and to the legal system.

    So, not today, SlopSatan

    by fnord77
  • University of Chicago's policy is more interesting: https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/ai-strategy-statement
    by greensoap
  • > AI can be used for research on papers ONLY for the limited purpose of identifying sources, such as cases, statutes, or secondary sources. Students are responsible for the accuracy of their research and all other aspects of their submitted work.

    Absolutely level-headed policy. Whoever came up with this deserves some serious praise.

    by drenvuk
  • The irony of not being able to use LLMs for an LLM degree
    by darth_avocado
  • Maybe this is obvious or overly reductive, but that rings well for me too and sounds so much like early (and still wise) guidance for Wikipedia and maybe the Internet at large.
    by nixosbestos
  • My understanding is that this is analogous to AI use policies within many law firms. Using AI-powered search tools as part of research is usually allowed; using generative AI to draft or rewrite content is usually not.

    (Given the importance of confidentiality, law firms also tend to be pretty picky about which tools their staff use.)

    by duskwuff