Recent research conducted by the major British law firm Linklaters has shown that artificial intelligence (AI) tools have improved in answering legal questions, but they still can’t match the expertise of even a junior lawyer. The firm tested various AI models on 50 “relatively hard” questions about English law and found that while OpenAI’s GPT 2 performed poorly, their o1 model, released in 2024, fared better.
These results indicate that AI tools are progressing towards being useful for real-world legal work, but they still require supervision from human experts. The international law firm Hill Dickinson also experienced an increase in AI tool usage among its staff, prompting them to restrict access.
The debate around AI’s impact and regulation continues to be a hot topic in the legal profession and beyond. The US and UK recently chose not to sign an international AI agreement, with concerns raised about safety versus innovation.
Linklaters’ benchmark tests have shown improvement in newer AI models, but they still fall short of the level of a qualified lawyer. Despite these advancements, there are questions about the future capabilities and limitations of AI tools in the legal field. Client relations remain crucial in legal services, emphasizing the ongoing importance of human involvement in this profession.
Vocabulary List:
- Expertise /ˌɛk.spərˈtiːz/ (noun): High level of knowledge or skill in a particular area.
- Supervision /ˌsuː.pərˈvɪʒ.ən/ (noun): The act of overseeing and directing others.
- Regulation /ˌrɛɡ.jʊˈleɪ.ʃən/ (noun): A rule or directive made and maintained by an authority.
- Concerns /kənˈsɜːrnz/ (noun): Worries or issues about a particular matter.
- Capabilities /ˌkeɪ.pəˈbɪl.ɪ.tiz/ (noun): The qualities or features that enable something to function.
- Profession /prəˈfɛʃ.ən/ (noun): A paid occupation especially one requiring extensive training.
How much do you know?
What did recent research by Linklaters show about AI tools in answering legal questions?
Which AI model performed poorly in Linklaters' tests?
What prompted Hill Dickinson to restrict access to AI tools among its staff?
Why did the US and UK choose not to sign an international AI agreement?
According to Linklaters' benchmark tests, which statement best describes AI tools?
What does the ongoing importance of human involvement in the legal profession emphasize?
AI tools now match the expertise of even a junior lawyer.
Hill Dickinson experienced a decrease in AI tool usage among its staff.
Client relations are not considered crucial in legal services.
The US and UK signed an international AI agreement recently.
The o1 model outperformed GPT 2 in Linklaters' tests.
There are no concerns about the future capabilities of AI tools in the legal field.
Linklaters tested AI models on 50 "relatively hard" questions about English law and found that their o1 model, released in 2024, performed .
AI tools are progressing towards being useful for real-world legal work, but they still require supervision from experts.
Linklaters' benchmark tests have shown improvement in newer AI models, but they still fall short of the level of a qualified .
The ongoing importance of human involvement in legal services highlights the significance of relations.
The US and UK recently chose not to sign an international AI agreement due to concerns about safety versus .
Despite advancements, there are questions about the future capabilities and limitations of AI tools in the field.
