AI Speeds Up Legal Tasks But Doesn’t Guarantee Quality, Study Finds

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming various industries, including the legal sector. A recent study, however, found that while AI accelerates legal writing tasks, it does not necessarily enhance the quality of the work. This intriguing finding has significant implications for law students and professionals alike.

The study involved law students who utilized AI for several legal writing tasks. The results showed that while these students were able to accomplish their assignments quicker, the quality of their work was not consistently superior to their peers who did not use AI. This suggests that the benefits of AI might vary based on the user’s abilities and the nature of the legal work being undertaken.

Interestingly, the study also found that law students with lower grades on average experienced greater improvements in their legal writing tasks when using GPT-4, an AI text generator, compared to their higher-performing classmates. This implies that AI tools like GPT-4 might be more beneficial for students who are struggling academically.

The study, conducted by professors from the University of Minnesota and the University of Southern California, is part of the latest AI news and contributes to the growing research on AI’s role in legal education. The authors previously released a study revealing that lower-performing law students scored higher on final exams when given access to GPT-4, whereas high-performing students performed worse when using the technology.

GPT-4, a large language model developed by Microsoft-backed OpenAI, generates human-like text based on user queries. For this study, 60 Minnesota law students were trained to use GPT-4 and were given four distinct writing assignments: drafting a complaint, a contract, a section of an employee handbook, and a client memo. Each participant used GPT-4 for two assignments and completed the other two without AI.

The results showed that GPT-4 did not lead to any statistical improvement except in contract drafting. However, there were “large and consistent decreases” in the time it took for students to complete the assignments when they used GPT-4. For instance, students who used GPT-4 to draft a complaint spent an average of 32% fewer minutes on that task.

While these findings might seem to advocate for the use of AI in legal writing, the study also cautions against the unrestricted use of AI. It recommends that law schools prohibit the use of generative AI in core first-year courses and their exams because the technology disproportionately aids lower-performing students. However, it also suggests that law schools should develop advanced courses that teach students how to use AI effectively.

The study provides a glimpse into how AI tools, such as AI images generator and AI video generator, can speed up tasks but not necessarily improve their quality. It highlights the need for legal professionals and students to understand and adapt to the latest AI tools without overly relying on them for quality work. This understanding is crucial in the age of artificial intelligence-generated images and texts, where AI is becoming an integral part of various professional fields.

In conclusion, while AI can significantly speed up legal writing tasks, its impact on the quality of work is not as clear-cut. As such, legal professionals and students should approach AI tools with a balanced perspective, appreciating their benefits but also recognizing their limitations. This will ensure that they are prepared to navigate the evolving landscape of the legal profession in the age of artificial intelligence.