Absolutely. I can't imagine AI working through e.g. a question on duty of care and being able to understand *how* to find analogies and (if appropriate) develop a novel category incrementally. - ThreadSky

anuragdeb.bsky.social • 78 days ago

Absolutely. I can't imagine AI working through e.g. a question on duty of care and being able to understand *how* to find analogies and (if appropriate) develop a novel category incrementally.

Reposted from Paolo Sandro

Once again: when it comes to legal reasoning, AI is bad and neither students nor instructors should use it. The whole point of law school is not to get the right answer (often, there isn't one) but how to look/find/construct one - and if you use an AI, you simply don't learn these skills at all.

Comments

bronnaghos.bsky.social•77 days ago

I’ve just run an exam where I allowed students to use AI but I warned them that it was not (yet) capable of exactly this type of thing. It can’t provide a rationale *in the right context* for professionalism issues. The answers speak for themselves.

someshtaori.bsky.social•78 days ago

to be fair to AI, i have a law degree and i don't understand how novel categories are supposed to develop incrementally to answer questions of duty of care. and in England at least, i am fairly sure the judges don't either

anuragdeb.bsky.social•78 days ago

To some extent it's intuitive, depending on familiarity with relevant case law. I just don't expect AI to have the necessary intuition.

someshtaori.bsky.social•78 days ago

maybe, but my rather tangential point was that the cases themselves are very unclear as to what a novel circumstance would look like

anuragdeb.bsky.social•78 days ago

I agree that novel duty cases are rare, but there are examples.
A recent case where the court accepted that a novel duty may be in play was Smith v Fonterra. The NZSC's reasoning was to weigh a lot of factors in balance. I'm not sure AI could do that, well or even at all.

someshtaori.bsky.social•78 days ago

on a quick skim I'm not sure that's a great example: the primary claim was in public nuisance and the negligence claim an appendage to that [175]. [78]-[80] discuss whether the duty of care point should be struck out, not whether there is/is not a duty of care owed in this novel circumstance.

anuragdeb.bsky.social•78 days ago

Right, because the court couldn't, as an appellate court in the context of the strike out. It's for the High Court to determine whether the duty exists and how, given the facts of the claim. The point is that the NZSC went further, on the assumed facts of this case, than the usual theory.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply