Building a better lawyer: Experimental evidence that artificial intelligence can increase legal work efficiency

IF 1.2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Pub Date : 2024-11-17 DOI:10.1111/jels.12396
Aileen Nielsen, Stavroula Skylaki, Milda Norkute, Alexander Stremitzer
{"title":"Building a better lawyer: Experimental evidence that artificial intelligence can increase legal work efficiency","authors":"Aileen Nielsen,&nbsp;Stavroula Skylaki,&nbsp;Milda Norkute,&nbsp;Alexander Stremitzer","doi":"10.1111/jels.12396","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Rapidly improving artificial intelligence (AI) technologies have created opportunities for human–machine cooperation in legal practice. We provide evidence from an experiment with law students (<i>N</i> = 206) on the causal impact of machine assistance on the efficiency of legal task completion in a private law setting with natural language inputs and multidimensional AI outputs. We tested two forms of machine assistance: AI-generated summaries of legal complaints and AI-generated text highlighting within those complaints. AI-generated highlighting reduced task completion time by 30% without any reduction in measured quality indicators compared to no AI assistance. AI-generated summaries produced no change in performance metrics. AI summaries and AI highlighting together improved efficiency but not as much as AI highlighting alone. Our results show that AI support can dramatically increase the efficiency of legal task completion, but finding the optimal form of AI assistance is a fine-tuning exercise. Currently, AI-generated highlighting is not readily available from state-of-the-art, consumer-facing large language models, but our work suggests that this capability should be prioritized in the development of legal AI products.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"21 4","pages":"979-1022"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jels.12396","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rapidly improving artificial intelligence (AI) technologies have created opportunities for human–machine cooperation in legal practice. We provide evidence from an experiment with law students (N = 206) on the causal impact of machine assistance on the efficiency of legal task completion in a private law setting with natural language inputs and multidimensional AI outputs. We tested two forms of machine assistance: AI-generated summaries of legal complaints and AI-generated text highlighting within those complaints. AI-generated highlighting reduced task completion time by 30% without any reduction in measured quality indicators compared to no AI assistance. AI-generated summaries produced no change in performance metrics. AI summaries and AI highlighting together improved efficiency but not as much as AI highlighting alone. Our results show that AI support can dramatically increase the efficiency of legal task completion, but finding the optimal form of AI assistance is a fine-tuning exercise. Currently, AI-generated highlighting is not readily available from state-of-the-art, consumer-facing large language models, but our work suggests that this capability should be prioritized in the development of legal AI products.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
打造更好的律师:人工智能可提高法律工作效率的实验证据
人工智能(AI)技术的迅速发展为法律实践中的人机合作创造了机会。我们以法学院学生(N = 206)为实验对象,通过自然语言输入和多维人工智能输出,提供了机器辅助对私法环境中法律任务完成效率的因果影响的证据。我们测试了两种形式的机器辅助:人工智能生成的法律投诉摘要和人工智能生成的投诉内容高亮文本。与没有人工智能辅助的情况相比,人工智能生成的高亮文本将任务完成时间缩短了 30%,而测量的质量指标却没有任何下降。人工智能生成的摘要没有改变绩效指标。人工智能摘要和人工智能突出显示共同提高了效率,但提高幅度不如单独使用人工智能突出显示。我们的研究结果表明,人工智能支持可以显著提高法律任务的完成效率,但找到人工智能辅助的最佳形式是一项微调工作。目前,最先进的、面向消费者的大型语言模型还不能随时提供人工智能生成的高亮显示,但我们的工作表明,在开发法律人工智能产品时应优先考虑这一功能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
11.80%
发文量
34
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Market versus policy responses to novel occupational risks Network analysis of lawyer referral markets: Evidence from Indiana Emotional bargaining after litigation: An experimental study of the Coase theorem Automating Abercrombie: Machine-learning trademark distinctiveness
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1