“All AI is equal, it’s just that some is more equal than others”
As George Orwell pointed out in Animal Farm, while some things start out as a good idea, there’s always the possibility that they can go horribly wrong. Unfortunately, when it comes to how technology providers are explaining their offerings today, there’ll be many lawyers who wish they were like Boxer and shipped off to the glue factory as they struggle to understand what they are talking about.
Last month I warned about the reality of how clients will be the driving force behind lawyers moving to use more effective technology, which will definitely be more effective than the woolly promises of how blockchain-enabled AI-driven platforms will “revolutionise the home buying and selling process”.
But here’s the problem.
By now, either you or a colleague will have had a client use AI to critique your work. If you want evidence, look at that last complaint letter you received; it’s detailed and disturbingly saccharine language explaining where you went wrong when you bought that flat, can only have been written by ChatGPT.
That’s why it’s never been more important to investigate new technology to help reduce the risks involved in the process.
But hang on, ChatGPT gets things wrong all the time
It’s worth remembering that this new technology, is exactly that, new. It’s easy to be assured of its shortcomings by recent examples of lawyers using it indiscriminately, typically with public versions that make up non-existent cases. Despite the promises delivered along with recent upgrades that they have reduced the number of these hallucinations; there’s still enough evidence for lawyers to remain sceptical of its use.
Whilst this technology does have a remarkable ability to combine information from multiple sources and interpret it in a nuanced way, there are strong technical reasons why an element of randomness is required within these public solutions. Which makes them less than ideal for use within the law.
The problem is that there is a huge variation in technology offerings as we find ourselves trapped between the metaphors of the AI Wild West and an AI Arms Race. The reality is that as lawyers watch the current trickle of ChatGPT claims escalate to a torrent, they will have little choice but to make the decision to adopt it.
Prompt engineering for lawyers?
As with conveyancing, where the qualifications to call oneself a lawyer are pretty loose, when it comes to delivering AI-based products, it’s not difficult to get up and running. The current flavour of the month is taking a standard chat product but merely restrict its use to a specific environment. Whilst this should stop data from the public internet being used for answers, or indeed, confidential data being leaked out, unfortunately, it does mean the lawyer will need to do extra work themselves.
While lawyers may be really good at asking great questions, this does not mean that this skill can be applied to writing prompts for AI, especially with the spectre of hallucinations never far away.
The question is not whether lawyers CAN produce the correct prompts to generate an accurate response, but whether they should be. Which is why it makes complete sense for providers to deliver the technology that produces questions that they think the lawyer should be asking.
But here’s the thing – ask any lawyer what the most important aspect of their role is, and they will typically reply that they want to advise their client effectively, and ensure that they are able to sell their property in the future.
Which is why delegating all responsibility for asking the right questions to the technology provider is just a bit too risky. After all, one lawyer’s “Tyneside lease” is another’s “Strange - one leaseholder owns the freehold of the other leaseholder – probably a drafting error.”
The key will be a happy medium between offering guidance and enabling the lawyer to ask the questions that they think are appropriate.
Prepare for the unexpected
The harsh reality is that no software provider will ever be able to take into account the huge array of issues that can arise in a conveyancing case. But this does not mean lawyers should close their eyes to the protection that this new technology can bring.
Given the ever-increasing rise of the demands of clients for more accurate and timely due diligence, means that being informed of the difference between technologies has never been more important.
Now is the time for technology providers to make more of an effort to understand the concerns of lawyers and take the time to explain the pros and cons of different approaches. Otherwise, we will continue to be as confused as the Animal Farm creatures, when it was explained to them that “four legs were good but two legs were better”.
Which was not exactly what they were told at the beginning of their revolution.
Peter Ambrose is the CEO of The Partnership and Legalito – specialists in the delivery of transparent and ultra-efficient conveyancing software and services.
Peter Ambrose: pambrose@thepartnershiplimited.com, 01483 579978
Press enquiries: Tracy Holland, tholland@thepartnershiplimited.com 01483 579978