Thanks for the review Tom. The opinion is like just about every other ethics opinion I have read on using GenAI, picking up and discussing the same issues, although most of the Australian guidance pieces don't discuss fees - so that's a bonus. However, the discussion of fees is pretty shallow like just about every discussion of the pricing of legal services. I also get a bit irked by the whole mindset of ethics as a list of things you must not do. I think the rules of ethics imply a positive professional outlook that requires us to be concerned about our community and the health of the justice system. I would love to see some positive ethical guidance around the use of GenAI.
Another issue: I can't stand how so many pieces on GenAI assume it will become more accurate. I don't see why more data will fix its existing problems. Tighter human training and restrictions on its learning material may help with accuracy - but wouldn't that be going backwards technologically? How about a discussion about what it is currently capable of?
I appreciate your comment Jennie. Positive ethical guidance around the use of GenAI - I love that! Not just negative injunctions but positive injunctions to use GenAI to make the law better, more accessible, more intelligible. I totally agree.
As for the other issue, more data won’t necessarily fix the accuracy problem, but there are technical improvements that can improve GenAI’s performance. As for what it’s currently capable of, I talk about this more in my articles on RAG, Prompt Engineering and AI Agents.
Great timing! looking forward to the gold!
Thanks Paul! Me too. :)
Thanks for the review Tom. The opinion is like just about every other ethics opinion I have read on using GenAI, picking up and discussing the same issues, although most of the Australian guidance pieces don't discuss fees - so that's a bonus. However, the discussion of fees is pretty shallow like just about every discussion of the pricing of legal services. I also get a bit irked by the whole mindset of ethics as a list of things you must not do. I think the rules of ethics imply a positive professional outlook that requires us to be concerned about our community and the health of the justice system. I would love to see some positive ethical guidance around the use of GenAI.
Another issue: I can't stand how so many pieces on GenAI assume it will become more accurate. I don't see why more data will fix its existing problems. Tighter human training and restrictions on its learning material may help with accuracy - but wouldn't that be going backwards technologically? How about a discussion about what it is currently capable of?
Grumble over. Thank you :)
I appreciate your comment Jennie. Positive ethical guidance around the use of GenAI - I love that! Not just negative injunctions but positive injunctions to use GenAI to make the law better, more accessible, more intelligible. I totally agree.
As for the other issue, more data won’t necessarily fix the accuracy problem, but there are technical improvements that can improve GenAI’s performance. As for what it’s currently capable of, I talk about this more in my articles on RAG, Prompt Engineering and AI Agents.
Great timely article for lawyers.
Thanks Herbert! Appreciate it.