Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
GPT-4 and E-Discovery: Sidley Puts It to the Test
ChatGPT by OpenAI came crashing into the world on Nov. 30, 2022, and quickly captured everyone's imagination, including that of businesses and lawyers eager to capitalize on the many ways artificial intelligence (AI) has been predicted to fundamentally change the way business is done, including how law is practiced. In this article, we offer a quantifiable look at whether GPT-4 is likely to live up to these expectations in the legal context and, more specifically, as it relates to document review in e-discovery.
ChatGPT is a large language, generative AI model, which means it can absorb a large quantity of written information and then generate new, original content after receiving a prompt from the user. ChatGPT is particularly interesting for legal practitioners because its generative capabilities have the potential to both alter and enhance attorneys' current practices. For example, most in the legal community have heard by now the cautionary tale of lawyers who tried unsuccessfully to use ChatGPT to write legal briefs and were subsequently sanctioned by a federal district court. But that mishap certainly does not seal ChatGPT's fate in the legal field; rather, it is an unfortunate example of the inexperienced use of a new technology without developing an understanding of its strengths and weaknesses.
Indeed, for e-discovery practitioners, ChatGPT and similar generative AI may cause a sea change in the not-so-distant future in how eDiscovery work is done. Specifically, ChatGPT's evaluative and responsive capabilities have the potential to successfully replace or augment functions that are historically performed by attorneys or traditional evaluative tools like technology assisted review (TAR).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Role and Responsibilities of Practice Group Leaders
Ideally, the objective of defining the role and responsibilities of Practice Group Leaders should be to establish just enough structure and accountability within their respective practice group to maximize the economic potential of the firm, while institutionalizing the principles of leadership and teamwork.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?