Bridget and Zach talk with Adam Unikowsky, about his article “In AI We Trust, Part II,” where AI adjudicates every Supreme Court case. They explore how AI tools are rapidly advancing and their impact on the law.
This YouTube podcast episode discusses the implications of artificial intelligence (AI) on the legal profession, specifically in the context of legal research, brief writing, and legal decision-making. The episode features an interview with Adam Unikowski, a partner at Jenner & Block, who has been experimenting with AI tools like Claude to analyze Supreme Court cases and draft opinions. Unikowski argues that AI has the potential to revolutionize the legal field, making lawyers more efficient and even helping them generate novel legal theories. He believes that AI can be a valuable tool for judges, arbitrators, and law clerks, potentially accelerating the decision-making process and improving the quality of legal work. The podcast explores the potential benefits and challenges of using AI in the legal profession, as well as the implications for law firms, courts, and arbitration organizations.
In my last post, I opined that AI was already able to adjudicate complex cases. Some commenters were skeptical. For example, one commenter suggested that AI might be “deciding” cases by randomly choosing a brief and summarizing its contents.
Taking this criticism to heart, I decided to do a little more empirical testing of AI’s legal ability. Specifically, I downloaded the briefs in every Supreme Court merits case that has been decided so far this Term, inputted them into Claude 3 Opus (the best version of Claude), and then asked a few follow-up questions. (Although I used Claude for this exercise, one would likely get similar results with GPT-4.)
The results were otherworldly. Claude is fully capable of acting as a Supreme Court Justice right now. When used as a law clerk, Claude is easily as insightful and accurate as human clerks, while towering over humans in efficiency.
Let’s start with the easiest thing I asked Claude to do: adjudicate Supreme Court cases. Claude consistently decides cases correctly. When it gets the case “wrong”—meaning, decides it differently from how the Supreme Court decided it—its disposition is invariably reasonable.
For example, Thursday and Friday last week, the Supreme Court decided six cases: United States Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC; Campus-Chaves v. Garland; Garland v. Cargill; FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine; Starbucks v. McKinney; and Vidal v. Elster. Claude nailed five out of six, missing only Campos-Chaves, in which it took the dissenters’ side of a 5-4 opinion, which is hardly “wrong.”
Read the complete article here: In AI we trust, part II by Adam Unikowsky
While humankind's technological capacity to destroy lives and resources developed incredibly during the last century, our social and political competence to solve conflict peacefully has not increased at the same...
By Camilo AzcarateThe Importance of the Relationship; What are the expectations; and what should be discussed? The relationship between the Air Traffic Manager (ATM) and the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA)...
By Christopher Garcia, Scott RautioJAMS ADR Blog by Chris PooleIn recent years, large companies have embraced arbitration as their preferred method of dispute resolution, particularly in international disputes with suppliers, customers and business partners....
By Kevin McDonnell
