Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Legal Tech: TAR As a Reincarnation of Human Review
The legal field has been inundated with various types of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology that have promised to revolutionize the industry. From document review to predictive analytics and decision-making tools, there is no shortage of AI tools available. The recent public debut of ChatGPT and GPT-4, while fueling excitement about the future of AI, has only added to the confusion to those of us in the legal industry, leaving many unsure of its implications for litigation and law practice in general. For definition purposes, "litigation" will encompass legal practices that involve the review of data or material information in responding to an internal or external investigation, and/or traditional civil or commercial litigation matters.
This article seeks to provide clarity and context on the different types of AI available in the legal industry today and how the new GPT technology fits into that landscape. More importantly, it will illustrate the potential impact of the next generation of AI on litigation and legal practice as a whole. Understanding the capabilities and limitations of these new AI tools will be helpful for lawyers and legal professionals looking to improve efficiency in advising and supporting their clients. In essence, AI has the potential to learn how we communicate and become a virtual assistant in the practice of law.
Where AI Is Today In Litigation
The first generation of AI tools in litigation for TAR were based on supervised machine learning algorithms that have been in existence since the 1970s. Machine learning-based tools can make predictions following training, but they start training from scratch on every new case. Due to the inherent limitations of these models, they are trained from limited information, e.g., example documents paired with tags assigned by human reviewers. And while, over time, improvements like active learning have been added, branding them TAR 2.0, these improvements did not fundamentally change the learning algorithm or the information that they learn from.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?