As different versions of artificial intelligence enter our lives, the owners of important professions will have to compete with them. So far - in the form of non-binding competitions. Acting law professors from Stanford University, Duke Universities and South Carolina were challenged to test the effectiveness of the LawGeex legal platform.
The conditions for all participants were the same: 5 documents - detailed nondisclosure agreements. They needed to be analyzed and answered to 30 principled, specific legal questions regarding wording and conditions. The documents were test, and a standard set of answers was prepared for each - the task of the competition was to determine the percentage of accurate answers received in the allotted time.
The competition took 4 hours, but most human lawyers completed it in 90-95 minutes. Their indicator is not bad, on average 85% of correct answers, and this is taking into account the work on the documents alone, without the help of the traditional team. And what about AI? LawGeex gave 95% correct answers and spent… 26 seconds on it. Unconditional victory.
Professors left the competition not at all upset, on the contrary, they are now firmly convinced that they will not face the loss of their jobs in the near future. First, because such AIs still need to be taught first, and this requires a human teacher. Secondly, they do not make decisions, only very quickly and efficiently wade through the jungle of legal terms. And, thirdly, AI will be able to replace that very team of young assistant lawyers, and this promises to optimize the work of a law firm and benefit its management. But now you can't envy law graduates.