The article critiques the current benchmarking practices for legal AI, asserting that focusing only on speed and accuracy overlooks the nuanced challenges legal professionals face. Many AI products misrepresent their efficacy with boastful claims, yet none provide completely accurate answers. A meaningful benchmark should assess the full two-step process of obtaining and verifying information, rather than reducing success to simplistic metrics. Without context and relevance, these benchmarks can mislead, ultimately preventing users from understanding the true value of AI in delivering legal solutions.
The challenge is one-dimensional metrics do not offer a reliable representation of the real value of GenAI in the legal research process.
For benchmarks to be valuable, they must test real-world problems that legal professionals face and measure what customers care about.
Benchmarking just part of this process does not provide useful information - unless there is a part of the process that is completely broken.
It's the end result of this two-step process that matters.
Collection
[
|
...
]