GPT in general and the legal industry in particular: Report from an interesting roundtable.

Yesterday at noon (local time), a roundtable on "Beyond ChatGPT: What Generative AI Actually Means for Law Firms, In-House, Legal Tech and More" was held in the US. Legaltech News Editor-in-Chief Stephanie Wilkins welcomed an illustrious crowd of guests.

Without a doubt, the surprise hit came from Pablo Arredondo, Co-Founder and CIO of Casetext. Not only did he announce the simultaneous live launch of GPT-4, but also of "CoCounsel", an application from Casetext that already relies on OpenAI's brand new language model. He raved about the new GPT version, predicting that it would be simply impossible for law firms not to use the new technology because it was so much better than humans (!) To be fair, he added that he had analyzed his own litigation files with CoCounsel, which alerted him to highly personal errors and gaps in reasoning.

Casey Flaherty, Co-Founder and Chief Strategy Officer of LexFusion, initially tried to put things into perspective: GPT is ultimately just one of many available language models that has the hype on its side. However, he also emphasized that the threshold to market maturity had been overcome; if ChatGPT was the trailer, the movies would now follow. His advice: "This is happening now; it will be done by you or to you." 

It was also exciting to hear that Flaherty, unlike the other panelists, very much expects technology to partially replace lawyers.

Darth Vaughn, Litigation Counsel and Legal Innovation and Technology Operations Manager at Ford Motor Company, took a different view: he, too, is excited about new technology, but stressed that at all times domain knowledge must remain available in the organization to control the new tools.

A large indirect impact on advocacy was seen by Jae Um, Founder and Executive Director at Six Parsecs. She, too, sees LargeLanguageModels as indispensable in law firm practice. However, she emphasizes that the use of ultra-fast high technology means the end of traditional billing based on time and material. The law firms are urgently required to try out alternative remuneration models, whereby it will probably come down to trial&error.

In summary, a common ground can be found in the fact that from the point of view of US commercial law firms and providers, the use of state-of-the-art technology is indispensable. Which language models will ultimately prevail cannot yet be judged. I have not heard of any reservations about training models of foreign providers with own law firm content (=client data). And whether this constraint is transferable 1:1 to the continental European market with its completely different legal system could not be addressed in this intra-American format.

ChatGPT and Academia - a tense relationship

After the first two days of the IRI§23 conference were primarily about practical usability, as far as the respective streams were related to ChatGPT, the focus on Saturday was on academic topics.

The first was the question of the protectability of language models and their results under copyright law. The answer to the latter is probably complex enough, there would have been no real need for the appeal for a general abolition of copyright in the field of science.

Highly interesting, however, were the reflections on the subject of teaching and on the subject of citation. With regard to teaching, the thesis was put forward without contradiction that the age of "academic homework" is finally over. No teacher can be expected to take responsibility for assignments that are actually written by highly developed chatbots.

And the scientific citation, is it also endangered? - I mean, yes certainly. How should a citation be composed if the result is not repeatable? After all, here there are massive differences in the new technologies compared to the common practice of citing web pages with an exact date of retrieval. But I also wonder if the question is really that prominent. Will there be legions of scientists using ChatGPT to write their papers? If so, then only in marginal areas, and there a copy&paste from Wikipedia should be sufficient. With appropriate reference.

Conclusion: Some questions can be solved, others only in the more distant future. It may be discussed further on academic ground.

ChatGPT - Revolution or bubble?

At "IRI§23", the International Legal Informatics Symposium in Salzburg, ChatGPT was the star. The deserving organizers had not quite expected this, but the number of visitors to the corresponding streams was high.

But what exactly is so special about this new technology?

• The ability to correctly interp'ret human language, say some.
• The ability to even write texts in a flawless form, the others.
• ChatGPT revolutionizes database searching, according to some; or not.
• It is a system that should be used only by experts because of its error-proneness - or, according to another opinion, only by non-professionals.

And so it went on, and every opinion was well-founded! There was even disagreement on the question of whether ChatGPT would tsunami-like overrun the legal world or whether it was just a risky bubble.

At least concerning the last question I have a clear opinion: ChatGPT (and the epigones) are too big to fail. The billion dollar investment leaves no other development. And after all, never in history has a new technology found so many users so quickly.

Conversational AI is making history, but no one knows exactly what form it will take.