Anthropic's Claude produced a strong analysis of a complex constitutional dispute involving the Confrontation Clause and Smith v. Arizona. Experiments with Claude 3.5 Sonnet assessed majority and dissenting opinions and produced notably insightful legal reasoning. The legal profession shows uneven adoption, with many lawyers misusing generative AI in case filings. Courts and legal institutions remain uncertain about AI's broader ramifications and governance. AI is also appearing in other technical areas, such as contributions to the Linux kernel, prompting calls for official policies and clearer standards for responsible use.
Can AI provide legitimately useful assistance to lawyers and judges? One of the nation's most powerful attorneys seems to think so. US associate Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said recently that Anthropic's Claude chatbot "did an exceptional job of figuring out an extremely difficult" Constitutional dispute -- one that had twice previously divided the Court, according to a recent from Bloomberg Law.
Speaking at the Ninth Circuit's judicial conference in Monterey, California last month, Kagan referred to recent blog posts from Supreme Court litigator Adam Unikowsky, which describe his experiments using Claude for complex legal analysis. The dispute in question revolved around the , part of the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees defendants the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses testifying against them in court.
In from last year, Unikowsky prompted Claude 3.5 Sonnet to assess the court's majority and dissenting opinions on Smith v. Arizona -- the most recent Confrontation Clause case -- for which Kagan authored the majority opinion. "Claude is more insightful about the Confrontation Clause than any mortal," Unikowsky wrote in that post.
Collection
[
|
...
]