@justincurl.bsky.social
Reposted
@justincurl.bsky.social @peterhenderson.bsky.social Kart Kandula, and Faiz Surani warn that transfering influence to unaccountable private interests through the use of AI or large language models by judges to determine ordinary meaning represents a structural incompatibility with the judicial role.
Judges Shouldn’t Rely on AI for the Ordinary Meaning of Text
Large language models are inherently shaped by private interests, making them unreliable arbiters of language.
www.lawfaremedia.org
May 22, 2025 at 6:41 PM
@justincurl.bsky.social @peterhenderson.bsky.social Kart Kandula, and Faiz Surani warn that transfering influence to unaccountable private interests through the use of AI or large language models by judges to determine ordinary meaning represents a structural incompatibility with the judicial role.
Should judges use LLMs like ChatGPT to determine the meaning of legal text?
Whatever your answer, it’s already happening… @peterhenderson.bsky.social, Kart Kandula, Faiz Surani, and I explain why this is a dangerous idea in a recent article for Lawfare... 🧵 (1/10)
Whatever your answer, it’s already happening… @peterhenderson.bsky.social, Kart Kandula, Faiz Surani, and I explain why this is a dangerous idea in a recent article for Lawfare... 🧵 (1/10)
May 22, 2025 at 5:45 PM
Should judges use LLMs like ChatGPT to determine the meaning of legal text?
Whatever your answer, it’s already happening… @peterhenderson.bsky.social, Kart Kandula, Faiz Surani, and I explain why this is a dangerous idea in a recent article for Lawfare... 🧵 (1/10)
Whatever your answer, it’s already happening… @peterhenderson.bsky.social, Kart Kandula, Faiz Surani, and I explain why this is a dangerous idea in a recent article for Lawfare... 🧵 (1/10)