Top lawyers beaten by legal AI
NDAs tend to be a straightforward type of document with limited scope and a fairly well-known universe of issues. So having a computer program parse the document and itemize issues seems like a good idea.<p>But what does it mean that the AI “beat” the humans? That the program simply spotted the issues and listed them faster and more completely than the lawyers? Not that impressive a victory. It’s how the issues get resolved that are important.<p>Did the AI interact with a lawyer on the other side and get issues resolved? Not likely, but the story doesn’t tell us exactly what the test consisted of and how “victory” was determined. (It is possible to download the 40-page report and analyze it, but I am not willing to spend the time to do that, and I bet most commenters, like me, are just responding to the headline take-away.)<p>While AI can be a great tool, one of the problems with it is that often no one knows how the program makes decisions. Not knowing what you don’t know can present serious blind spots. For example, it may be possible for a counter-party to a transaction who has access to the same AI as you to construct a document with text containing an issue that the AI won’t spot but that the counter-party planted in the document for his or her advantage. If the document is reviewed only by AI (and given a cursory review by a bored low-paid worker who expects AI to catch all the issues), then there is an open back door to your legal castle.<p>Computers haven’t put accountants out of business, and they won’t put lawyers out of business either. They will make lawyers more efficient, but whether that translates into lower fees remains to be seen.