Three Laws Blog: Law and Artificial Intelligence

Broyde on AI and Jewish Law: Seeing How ChatGPT 4.0 Looks at a Novel Issue @EmoryLaw

Michael J. Broyde, Emory University School of Law, is publishing AI and Jewish Law: Seeing How ChatGPT 4.0 Looks at a Novel Issue in B.D.D.- Bekhol Derakhekha Daehu. Here is the abstract.

In an article forthcoming, I analyze whether a man who is in a same sex relationship may engage in the priestly blessing as a matter of Jewish Law and the article concludes that such is permitted in Jewish Law. This is a novel question of Jewish Law, with virtually no prior works written that directly discuss this point. Furthermore, nothing that has been published can be found on the internet, as far as I can determine. I was interested in seeing how ChatGPT 4.0 thought about this issue after seeing the sources I saw. So, I uploaded all the text in this article one-by-one and asked ChatGPT 4.0 to translate them as an expert for a Jewish law audience. It did a very good – but not perfect – job. I then asked ChatGPT 4.0 “Now that you have seen all these texts, do you think a man who is a priest and in a same sex marriage can perform the priestly blessing as a matter of halacha. Write me about 500 words.” There is virtually no discussion of the issue of a same sex married kohen engaging in the priestly blessing in either Hebrew or English on the internet and none of the sources I uploaded discuss this issue. ChatGPT had to derive and reason this from the sources I uploaded (and which it knew from other sources) about what was the Jewish law in this case. It could not simply “google” to find out what others have said, as this is a matter of first impression. Indeed, what is needed to answer this question is nuanced reading of sources about the various categories present and the classification of sins into proper groupings, as well as other ideas, as my article shares. I was quite surprised how excellent a job ChatGPT did. Furthermore, when I asked it in the end to state a contrary view, it highlighted the correct issue and focused on it. This article – after sharing ChatGPT 4.0 various answers to questions I posed from the sources I shared – ends with a complex discussion of whether Jewish law and American law will be subject to AI analysis and in what way is Jewish Law different from American Law.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Yankovskiy on Whether Artificial Intelligence Capable of Writing a Law Journal Article

Roman M. Yankovskiy, Higher School of Economics, has published Is Artificial Intelligence Capable of Writing a Law Journal Article? at 3 Zakon [The Statute] 126 (2023).

In this article, we explore the potential of artificial intelligence (AI), in particular, ChatGPT based on GPT 4.0 model, to create articles in the field of legal studies. We analyze the pros and cons of employing AI in jurisprudence, specifically focusing on its capacity to adapt to intricate legal terminology, evolving legislation, and nuanced argumentation. The primary emphasis is placed on potential inaccuracies that may emerge in AI-generated text, as well as the underlying causes and subsequent ramifications. Furthermore, we discuss the copyright implications for works created via AI and propose possible solutions. In conclusion, we outline the current limitations and future prospects for leveraging AI in both legal practice and scholarly research. A substantial portion of the article is entirely generated by AI.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Bambauer and Surdeanu on Authorbots @dbambauer @msurd @uarizonalaw @JournalSpeech

Derek E. Bambauer, University of Arizona College of Law, and Mihai Surdeanu, University of Arizona Department of Computer Science, are publishing Authorbots in volume 3 of the Journal of Free Speech Law. Here is the abstract.

ChatGPT has exploded into the popular consciousness in recent months, and the hype and concerns about the program have only grown louder with the release of GPT-4, a more powerful version of the software. Its deployment, including with applications such as Microsoft Office, has raised questions about whether the developers or distributors of code that includes ChatGPT, or similar generative pre-trained transformers, could face liability for tort claims such as defamation or false light. One important potential barrier to these claims is the immunity con-ferred by 47 U.S.C. § 230, popularly known as “Section 230.” In this Essay, we make two claims. First, Section 230 is likely to protect the creators, distributors, and hosts of online services that include ChatGPT in many cases. Users of those services, though, may be at greater legal risk than is commonly believed. Second, ChatGPT and its ilk make the analysis of the Section 230 safe harbor more com-plex, both substantively and procedurally. This is likely a negative consequence for the software’s developers and hosts, since complexity in law tends to generate uncertainty, which in turn creates cost. Nonetheless, we contend that Section 230 has more of a role to play in legal questions about ChatGPT than most commentators do—including the principal legislative drafters of Section 230—and that this result is generally a desirable one.

Download the essay from SSRN at the link.